|
Title: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: manselr on May 31, 2015, 05:12:06 PM This is the situation and what we know:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEl6tA4WMAAx25o.png:large So we are heading towards a dead end. Now, Gavin has proposed a fork of 20MB. That's a proposal. I don't know for how long would 20MB last for. Ideally, it should be able to deal with all the world's biggest electronic payment platforms transactions convined, so, can 20MB deal with a volume of for example, Western Union, Paypal, Mastercard... and so on and so on, combined? Because that is were we should aim at for the future. Bitcoin must be able to engulf all of that volume within itself to become the #1 electronic transaction method on the planet. Everything else is bullshit. Will 20MB be enough for this or we will need ANOTHER fork in the future? If 20MB is enough, it's a reasonable proposal. Sure, forking sucks, but im not hearing any other realistic solutions. Of course, like I said before, im assuming 20MB is the definitive fork. We can't be forking every X years, that's just retarded. What is not reasonable, is making a ton of FUD threads, saying how Gavincoin will kill BTC, while implying staying with the 1MB blocksize limit is all fine and dandy. So everytime you say Gavin's proposal is shit, explain why AND propose your own solution, otherwise you are just spreading cheap FUD. Another question I have: What is Satoshi's view on this? im sure he expected this to happen, so I guess he had an opinion before leaving. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: gentlemand on May 31, 2015, 05:16:01 PM 20mb blocks would be a microscopic slice of global payment volume. 'Kicking the can down the road' is the phrase that pops up regularly when discussing it.
Hopefully if there is a fork it'll be one to last for a long, long time. There's talk of an ever increasing block size year on year to be implemented too. I'll leave it to the experts to fight it out amongst themselves. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: NyeFe on May 31, 2015, 05:17:45 PM "Hold your heads under the table and hope we never require a block size increase, yes as adaptation grows"
SMH ::) Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: oblivi on May 31, 2015, 05:41:56 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again.
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Fuserleer on May 31, 2015, 05:44:21 PM I'm not anti-fork, nor am I really bothered which "stick" everyone ends up running with, but the problem remains that BTC can not scale to be a general world currency.
The only solution is a distributed ledger of some form, but on a single block chain, that is not possible to do. Side chains could be classified as a form of distributed ledger, and may work to some degree of success, but its more of form of partitioning rather than distribution, because you can not be sure that all side chains are using compatible properties or protocols to directly interact with each other, and so there is additional overhead to enforce this. To achieve load capabilities that will allow any crypto-currency to truly become a mass market, general world currency, and stay true to the original ideals of Bitcoin as a (100% decentralized), said currency must be developed from the beginning with a viable, working distributed ledger solution in mind. With BTC, there is no solution, period. Increasing the block size will never solve this problem if BTC was to become truly mainstream, due to the required block size to cope with 100's - 1000's of transactions per second loading. If block sizes are in the 100MB+ to deal with that kind of load, the end result is more centralization, and less full nodes on the network due to the costs and inconvenience of maintaining/running a full node. The block chain size can be mitigated with some form of pruning, but you still have the bandwidth and processing requirements to ensure full nodes are able to deal with those high transaction loads. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: not altcoin hitler on May 31, 2015, 05:48:37 PM I'm anti fork an my proposal is to just fire Gavin and be happy thereafter.
And he should take his fanclub with him! Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Amph on May 31, 2015, 05:56:09 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again. the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: LiteCoinGuy on May 31, 2015, 05:59:02 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again. the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now that is the reason why we should make an automatic increase. dont forget, we are winning time (years) and other solutions will be developed too! Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Fuserleer on May 31, 2015, 06:00:19 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again. the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now 20MB gets Bitcoin nowhere even close to VISA/Mastercard processing abilities. Visa on a regular day processes 2-3000 tx/s, and has a peak capacity of about 40,000 tx/s 20MB blocks give Bitcoin a theoretical capacity of about 140 tx/s, in practice it will be more around the 70tx/s For Bitcoin to have the same capacity as VISA alone on a normal day, would require block sizes of around 500MB, to be able to handle VISA peak of 40,000 tx/s, blocks would need to be about 10GB Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: gentlemand on May 31, 2015, 06:02:29 PM the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now 20mb is more but it's still not anywhere near the same ball park. If we assume it's 20 times larger than the theoretical 7 transaction per second, but it appears to be 2.7 really, then that's 280 tps in a best case scenario. Visa can handle 24,000 according to themselves. I don't think they're directly comparable. If Bitcoin really was an everyday currency for a reasonable percentage of the world it would be knocking up far larger numbers. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: pedrog on May 31, 2015, 06:18:56 PM Blocksize, as is today, already cannot deal with all bitcoin transactions, you forgot many transactions already happen off chain, in Coinbase, Xapo, Bitpay, etc, not only within their service but between services that already have an agreement.
We don't need one solution, we need several solutions to scale Bitcoin to compete with Paypal, Visa and Mastercards of the world. We can have 20 MB blocks and we can have the Lightning Network and we can have off chain transactions, because we need all of those if we're gonna scale to the moon. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Amph on May 31, 2015, 06:22:56 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again. the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now 20MB gets Bitcoin nowhere even close to VISA/Mastercard processing abilities. Visa on a regular day processes 2-3000 tx/s, and has a peak capacity of about 40,000 tx/s 20MB blocks give Bitcoin a theoretical capacity of about 140 tx/s, in practice it will be more around the 70tx/s For Bitcoin to have the same capacity as VISA alone on a normal day, would require block sizes of around 500MB, to be able to handle VISA peak of 40,000 tx/s, blocks would need to be about 10GB tnx for giving me the exact numbers, then if those are correct we only need another fork for 400-500, with another rise of x20, i don't find this to be a big problem like the others 4 dev are claiming, and complaining about Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: pereira4 on May 31, 2015, 06:23:58 PM I'm not anti-fork, nor am I really bothered which "stick" everyone ends up running with, but the problem remains that BTC can not scale to be a general world currency. The only solution is a distributed ledger of some form, but on a single block chain, that is not possible to do. Side chains could be classified as a form of distributed ledger, and may work to some degree of success, but its more of form of partitioning rather than distribution, because you can not be sure that all side chains are using compatible properties or protocols to directly interact with each other, and so there is additional overhead to enforce this. To achieve load capabilities that will allow any crypto-currency to truly become a mass market, general world currency, and stay true to the original ideals of Bitcoin as a (100% decentralized), said currency must be developed from the beginning with a viable, working distributed ledger solution in mind. With BTC, there is no solution, period. Increasing the block size will never solve this problem if BTC was to become truly mainstream, due to the required block size to cope with 100's - 1000's of transactions per second loading. If block sizes are in the 100MB+ to deal with that kind of load, the end result is more centralization, and less full nodes on the network due to the costs and inconvenience of maintaining/running a full node. The block chain size can be mitigated with some form of pruning, but you still have the bandwidth and processing requirements to ensure full nodes are able to deal with those high transaction loads. But didn't satoshi wanted Bitcoin to (ideally) become a world currency capable of dealing with said volume? I don't think he wanted Bitcoin to stay some small niche payment method. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: gentlemand on May 31, 2015, 06:30:20 PM But didn't satoshi wanted Bitcoin to (ideally) become a world currency capable of dealing with said volume? I don't think he wanted Bitcoin to stay some small niche payment method. Here's his statement about it - "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms" Dunno whether he actually approved of that idea or whether it was an observation of future fact. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: jaberwock on May 31, 2015, 06:31:43 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again. the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now that is the reason why we should make an automatic increase. dont forget, we are winning time (years) and other solutions will be developed too! how deal with people that "forget" to upgrade their clients or can only do it at a high cost? Serious financial software can't be upgraded every day Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Fuserleer on May 31, 2015, 06:35:39 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again. the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now 20MB gets Bitcoin nowhere even close to VISA/Mastercard processing abilities. Visa on a regular day processes 2-3000 tx/s, and has a peak capacity of about 40,000 tx/s 20MB blocks give Bitcoin a theoretical capacity of about 140 tx/s, in practice it will be more around the 70tx/s For Bitcoin to have the same capacity as VISA alone on a normal day, would require block sizes of around 500MB, to be able to handle VISA peak of 40,000 tx/s, blocks would need to be about 10GB tnx for giving me the exact numbers, then if those are correct we only need another fork for 400-500, with another rise of x20, i don't find this to be a big problem like the others 4 dev are claiming, and complaining about No problem. It could become a big problem, read my post further up in this thread. If Bitcoin was to become truly mainstream in the next 1-2 years, then technologies required such as connection bandwidth, CPU power, and storage to support that load, could be priced out of the "guy on the street" budget range. If normal users are not able, or willing, to run full nodes and ensure real decentralization, then you end up in a mess. I'm not anti-fork, nor am I really bothered which "stick" everyone ends up running with, but the problem remains that BTC can not scale to be a general world currency. The only solution is a distributed ledger of some form, but on a single block chain, that is not possible to do. Side chains could be classified as a form of distributed ledger, and may work to some degree of success, but its more of form of partitioning rather than distribution, because you can not be sure that all side chains are using compatible properties or protocols to directly interact with each other, and so there is additional overhead to enforce this. To achieve load capabilities that will allow any crypto-currency to truly become a mass market, general world currency, and stay true to the original ideals of Bitcoin as a (100% decentralized), said currency must be developed from the beginning with a viable, working distributed ledger solution in mind. With BTC, there is no solution, period. Increasing the block size will never solve this problem if BTC was to become truly mainstream, due to the required block size to cope with 100's - 1000's of transactions per second loading. If block sizes are in the 100MB+ to deal with that kind of load, the end result is more centralization, and less full nodes on the network due to the costs and inconvenience of maintaining/running a full node. The block chain size can be mitigated with some form of pruning, but you still have the bandwidth and processing requirements to ensure full nodes are able to deal with those high transaction loads. But didn't satoshi wanted Bitcoin to (ideally) become a world currency capable of dealing with said volume? I don't think he wanted Bitcoin to stay some small niche payment method. I can't speak for Satoshi, nor his long term intentions, but you need to remember that Bitcoin was/is just experiment. If I was Satoshi and had all these ideas, Bitcoin in its current incarnation would of been the first step, a proof of concept, and not the final end game. I'm certain that he was aware of its limitations, he was a smart guy, so would also know that to achieve global currency status would require some later refinement, revisions and work. I think what is more likely is that Bitcoin ran away from him before he had a chance to get to that point, it got more attention than he thought it would and got nervous about the implications. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: SpanishSoldier on May 31, 2015, 06:38:42 PM Proposal 1: Show some respect to Satoshi. Make it 21MB at least.
Proposal 2: I need to understand the lightning.network before proposing this part. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: pedrog on May 31, 2015, 06:41:07 PM I dont think we'll see many replies here, people are too busing making fud threads while not proposing any solution. Then again, what gentlemand said is a problem, if we'll need more and more forks it doesnt sound good. Hopefully if they make a fork, it's a fork that is self adaptive to this problem so we don't need to ever fork again. the proposed alternative are not good enough, hence the only solution is to go ahead and making this change, other 4 devs are worried that in the future it might be necessary to fork again because 20mb would not be enough, but with 20MB we are in the same boat as visa or mastercard(if i'm not mistaken, don't remember they number of transaction per second), talking about transaction per second, worse case we should do 30 mb right now that is the reason why we should make an automatic increase. dont forget, we are winning time (years) and other solutions will be developed too! how deal with people that "forget" to upgrade their clients or can only do it at a high cost? Serious financial software can't be upgraded every day That's why Gavin already began this discussion, because it will take many months for the majority of the network to upgrade, that's the thing with distributed networks, one has to plan it way ahead. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Benjig on May 31, 2015, 07:08:15 PM I'm anti fork an my proposal is to just fire Gavin and be happy thereafter. Ok and what will you do when world demands more Bitcoin transactions, if we want to make Bitcoin bigger than the baby already it is we need changes. Please do not be afraid of change, that will kill you..And he should take his fanclub with him! More forks in the future may be needed but I'm not sure if FIAT will dissapear leaving economics world to Bitcoin or any other... Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: celestio on June 01, 2015, 02:31:11 AM I'm not anti-fork, nor am I really bothered which "stick" everyone ends up running with, but the problem remains that BTC can not scale to be a general world currency. The only solution is a distributed ledger of some form, but on a single block chain, that is not possible to do. Side chains could be classified as a form of distributed ledger, and may work to some degree of success, but its more of form of partitioning rather than distribution, because you can not be sure that all side chains are using compatible properties or protocols to directly interact with each other, and so there is additional overhead to enforce this. To achieve load capabilities that will allow any crypto-currency to truly become a mass market, general world currency, and stay true to the original ideals of Bitcoin as a (100% decentralized), said currency must be developed from the beginning with a viable, working distributed ledger solution in mind. With BTC, there is no solution, period. Increasing the block size will never solve this problem if BTC was to become truly mainstream, due to the required block size to cope with 100's - 1000's of transactions per second loading. If block sizes are in the 100MB+ to deal with that kind of load, the end result is more centralization, and less full nodes on the network due to the costs and inconvenience of maintaining/running a full node. The block chain size can be mitigated with some form of pruning, but you still have the bandwidth and processing requirements to ensure full nodes are able to deal with those high transaction loads. I've been looking at both sides of the equation and I have to agree. The proposal to just raise the blocksize limit to 20mb isn't solving anything, it's just prolonging the issue(A careless quick temporary fix if you will). Bitcoin still won't be able to scale. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: BIT-Sharon on June 01, 2015, 02:46:04 AM How will the limits effect on the value of per Bitcoin?
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Amph on June 01, 2015, 07:31:52 AM How will the limits effect on the value of per Bitcoin? probably some initial dump due to fud and random mistrust, from some whale especially, but we will stabilize after that, to the current price again one could expect a sub 200 this time, more easily than before i guess... Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: EternalWingsofGod on June 01, 2015, 07:38:43 AM This may be missed by others in Bitcoin Discussion I would recommend listening the Let's Talk Bitcoin #217 Podcast it helps a lot at looking at it objectively.
It's pretty informative at explaining both sides whether it is 1MB or 20MB and provides a good understanding of the issues. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should do about it. During the second half of the show, Bitcoin Developer and outspoken block size increase opponent Peter Todd joins the discussion to share his perspective on the issue, the problems he sees and why taking action now actually prevents the problem from finding a market solution. --- Let it run to the limit then if we have no choice fork but try to resolve bandwidth issues to scale up, while increasing min txt to reduce loads. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: vm_mpn on June 01, 2015, 09:25:48 AM This may be missed by others in Bitcoin Discussion I would recommend listening the Let's Talk Bitcoin #217 Podcast it helps a lot at looking at it objectively. It's pretty informative at explaining both sides whether it is 1MB or 20MB and provides a good understanding of the issues. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should do about it. During the second half of the show, Bitcoin Developer and outspoken block size increase opponent Peter Todd joins the discussion to share his perspective on the issue, the problems he sees and why taking action now actually prevents the problem from finding a market solution. --- Let it run to the limit then if we have no choice fork but try to resolve bandwidth issues to scale up, while increasing min txt to reduce loads. Thank you for posting this E... Now both sides of the argument are more clear and make much more sense. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: kelsey on June 01, 2015, 09:51:33 AM the obvious; litecoin ;)
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: DooMAD on June 01, 2015, 12:16:30 PM This image perfectly explains the dilemma in a succinct way. More people need to see it in the various threads where people are discussing the issues (although I'm still pretty sure most people still don't understand the implications of how the network would behave in the event of running with full blocks). I think I'll even go back and edit some of my previous posts to include it and recommend others do the same. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Pedja on June 01, 2015, 12:36:00 PM My proposal for Gavin:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ragi on June 01, 2015, 02:32:21 PM Proposal 1: Show some respect to Satoshi. Make it 21MB at least. 2. Some work on faster confirmation times, or mass adopt 0/1 confirms. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: elliottflz65 on June 01, 2015, 02:36:45 PM With a recent interview with Mike Hearn and Gavin Andersen they have said themselves they are not sure how close we are to hitting the limit in which they further explained as it could be years down the line or it could potentially be 1 month from now.
all those claiming to know when we are going to hit are speaking total bullshit in all honesty. anyone who is anti fork though needs to consider what other solutions there are using side chains will not be any better than the propsal gavin is offering it looks to me like the core developers and gavin and hearn are taking this too personally maybe gmaxwell more than anyone else. although I do agree with a lot gmaxwell has said but the fact of the matter is something needs to be done and without including the proposal gmaxwell is offering and hopefully we can come up with a solution which we dont have to take gavins approach although I believe conseus will be reached if gavin does go is way Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: oblivi on June 01, 2015, 03:49:08 PM How will the limits effect on the value of per Bitcoin? probably some initial dump due to fud and random mistrust, from some whale especially, but we will stabilize after that, to the current price again one could expect a sub 200 this time, more easily than before i guess... But sub 200 in what coin? Because as far as I Know, we will have 2 coins now, the old coin (in the old blockchain) and the new coin, in the new blockchain, so that means 2 prices, means a new coin needs to be added on exchanges, means companies will have to choose in between one of the 2 blockchains, means a lot of things. This is a total mess. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: SebastianJu on June 01, 2015, 07:09:00 PM This is the situation and what we know: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEl6tA4WMAAx25o.png:large So we are heading towards a dead end. Now, Gavin has proposed a fork of 20MB. That's a proposal. I don't know for how long would 20MB last for. Ideally, it should be able to deal with all the world's biggest electronic payment platforms transactions convined, so, can 20MB deal with a volume of for example, Western Union, Paypal, Mastercard... and so on and so on, combined? Because that is were we should aim at for the future. Bitcoin must be able to engulf all of that volume within itself to become the #1 electronic transaction method on the planet. Everything else is bullshit. Will 20MB be enough for this or we will need ANOTHER fork in the future? If 20MB is enough, it's a reasonable proposal. Sure, forking sucks, but im not hearing any other realistic solutions. Of course, like I said before, im assuming 20MB is the definitive fork. We can't be forking every X years, that's just retarded. What is not reasonable, is making a ton of FUD threads, saying how Gavincoin will kill BTC, while implying staying with the 1MB blocksize limit is all fine and dandy. So everytime you say Gavin's proposal is shit, explain why AND propose your own solution, otherwise you are just spreading cheap FUD. Another question I have: What is Satoshi's view on this? im sure he expected this to happen, so I guess he had an opinion before leaving. Wow, what a manipulating graph you posted. It lets it look like the blocks are already 95% full at the moment. And that 20MB is the last hope. I dont like such manipulations to the mind. There is plenty of time getting to a consensus. There is no hasty decision needed. At least thats something the graph shows clearly. Especially not when the chief coder claims he will go to a company that will somewhat privatize bitcoin then. It looks more to me like Bitcoin-XT has finalized their plans and now need a great ICO, or how you could name that. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ElectricMucus on June 01, 2015, 07:32:33 PM Take action automatically if blocks have been, on average since the last difficulty adjustment more than 62% full, for instance increase the allowed block size next difficulty adjustment. If they are less than 38% full verse via decrease it. Use the same controller software now in place for difficulty to maintain fullness of blocks ~50%.
Ok that's not strictly anti-fork, just that if there has to be a fork, make it count and figure out a smart solution. I think it's even better to adjust the difficulty in relation to the fullness of blocks so that conformation times and supply of new coins are related to network demand, but I know that would be seen as too radical so I'm willing to settle for intelligent blocksize adjustment instead. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: galbros on June 02, 2015, 12:40:55 AM I too really like the graph, thanks for posting it. The scale is logged so it does make it look fuller currently than it is but still the point is clearly made.
I think the only potential issue I have not seen discussed is what kind of transactions are in the blocks. Are there still lots of dust transactions? If so, then maybe there is a little more time as those transactions get squeezed out. I remember there was a time when satoshidice was responsible for like 75% of all blockchain transactions. I presume those days are long gone. Given that the block size started out a lot bigger, moving it back to where it originally was would seem to make sense. I just assume the downside is that the blockchain gets even bigger. Thanks to all the posters who tried to explain what was going on, this was one of the better threads I saw on this. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: KroniK907 on June 02, 2015, 01:52:35 AM Take action automatically if blocks have been, on average since the last difficulty adjustment more than 62% full, for instance increase the allowed block size next difficulty adjustment. If they are less than 38% full verse via decrease it. Use the same controller software now in place for difficulty to maintain fullness of blocks ~50%. I would have to take much longer to ponder the consequences but I really like the Idea of maintaining the fullness of blocks at ~50%. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ticoti on June 02, 2015, 01:57:59 AM I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary
everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: not altcoin hitler on June 02, 2015, 03:07:07 AM I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything It is not necessary. Totally not. The discussion is bogus nonsense and wears everyone out. Tired of it. There are enough ways to pump up max txs without forking and risking to ruin it. Gavin is just a crybaby with a pitchfork-reddit-mob. Shut it already. Bitcoin is fine the way it is. Gavin is corrupt and possibly a CIA mole. The fork is an attack on Bitcoin nothing more and nothing less. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: humanitee on June 02, 2015, 03:35:16 AM There is literally no reason to be against SOME sort of increase. Even the lightning guys said they would need bigger blocks to support a robust lightning network.
Maybe 20 MB is too much all at once, but to say we don't need to fork to at least 4 MB is beyond ludicrous. That would give developers time to fully develop and test solutions to scaling. I realize mining pools are worried about relay times but 1 MB is not feasible for much longer. Not forking will make me want to sell my coin more than the risk of forking. It is one of the few issues that would cause me to lose faith in the project. Bitcoin goes nowhere without a higher block size, period. If we continuously delay and pretend like we have other solutions, forking and reaching consensus will become even harder as the network becomes ever larger. This really should have been taken care of sooner. We will start pricing out micropayments if we wait much longer. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: MicroGuy on June 02, 2015, 03:38:46 AM Satoshi was not dumb, he picked Gavin for a reason. Going with Gavin on this, is honoring Satoshi's wishes. Going with the dissenting core devs is mutiny.
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: jubalix on June 02, 2015, 03:42:57 AM I don't see much issue here
Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball. HD space is still going down in cost. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Amph on June 02, 2015, 07:54:55 AM I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything It is not necessary. Totally not. The discussion is bogus nonsense and wears everyone out. Tired of it. There are enough ways to pump up max txs without forking and risking to ruin it. Gavin is just a crybaby with a pitchfork-reddit-mob. Shut it already. Bitcoin is fine the way it is. Gavin is corrupt and possibly a CIA mole. The fork is an attack on Bitcoin nothing more and nothing less. what are all those ways you are talking about? this upgrade is not necessary right, is mandatory, we are already near the limit, there is a chart posted by someone, check it before posting other crap bitcoin is not fine at all, big companies will never join the network with such a tiny TX limit per second, they simply cannot, they have huge movements of tx per seconds, with their business Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: shulio on June 02, 2015, 08:05:56 AM I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything It is not something necessary for now in some peoples mind, but they dont provide any solution for it, mostly people who are oppose it because they have a fork-o-phobia, forking btc will sometimes leave btc to be worthless and that is their main consent about this . Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: fat buddah on June 02, 2015, 08:07:31 AM I wonder when these gavin-tards get it that Bitcoin is not broken and running fine. It is a rule of complex system to not change them when they are not broken. There is currently a consensus for 1MB blocks else the network would not be running.
The anti-20MB people have to prove nothing and also have to deliver nothing. All they have to do is tell the reasons for the veto and that's it. There is consensus for Bitcoin as is today else it would not be running. If you want to change it you need consensus. If you get a veto (which you did) then there is no consensus on a change and you need to accept that. After getting a veto for your proposal you have two options: 1) producing a better proposal which will not get a veto or 2) leave the group (bitcoin in this case) that is how consensus principle works if you like it or not. There is even more sophisticated methods of approaching consensus but since you are all behaving like apes i'm not even trying. It's not like consensus democracies would be something new or something. They are just not as commen and people generally have no idea about it. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: SuperClam on June 02, 2015, 08:22:49 AM I don't see much issue here Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball. HD space is still going down in cost. Storage is not a major bottleneck. Bandwidth and latency are legitimate concerns from my reading of the material; though the current proposed change doesn't saturate either, depending on your personal situation. One of the issues-at-hand concerns adopting strategies that can easily become centralization forces now, or in the future. It is not something necessary for now in some peoples mind... Given a serious situation, the network has in the past proven it's ability to fork quite quickly. Further, even given a backlog in the mempool, users who include reasonable transaction fees with their transaction would be more likely to have their transaction included into a block. Meaning: The network would work fine. It is a fact that storing and broadcasting your transactions on the chain is not "free". You are enjoying the resources of the network of full-nodes. ...but they dont provide any solution for it... There are a variety of solutions that have been proposed, although there is admitted lack of implementations. However, development resources would be more likely applied to a problem that was actually imminent. ...forking btc will sometimes leave btc to be worthless and that is their main consent about this . Not true. No Bitcoin will be "lost" - With the exception of someone who receives an incoming transaction on the "losing" chain (that is not posted to the "winning" chain) and that output is then signed to a different address on the "winning" chain. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Rampion on June 02, 2015, 09:06:32 AM My proposal: a slow, progressive and cautious approach. First we increase to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. Doubling the block size seems the sensible approach - increase it in one single step by x20 seems overkill.
The reasons argued by those who defend a cautious and slow growth are solid; on the contrary, those argued by Hearn and his acolytes are reckless BS. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: fairglu on June 02, 2015, 09:12:18 AM Let's go back to the blunt technicalities: what happens if the block size does not grow?
Why? because people with unconfirmed tx would just keep re-submitting and spam, as that's the most effective technique to get *your* transaction through in a congested traffic situation. Just like elbowing is the most effective technique to get through a crowd. Yes, it would be selfish, but yes it would happen. So let's face it: limiting block size will NOT reduce network contention or make nodes lighter. Only reduced bitcoin usage would. Growing fees would achieve reduced bitcoin usage, though, but is that what you really want? Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: neoneros on June 02, 2015, 09:15:10 AM Thought the increase might be big, how big of a change is it in the core itself? Does a lot depend on the variable that defines the size of the blocks? What is the biggest fear in this?
If you have a room with a lightbulb, and is has to low light for reading, you can change the bulb with a higher intensity so you can read again, no big deal. I cannot think of it that the increase would actually be a big issue for the source and implementation. I could be wrong, not that into the code of the proposed fork itself, but I think the impact and positive outcome are larger than the actual risks that the code would break and be to hasty implemented. And what if it does fail? It will be tested and tried, then it will slowly be adopted into the chain, if it works we can embrace it, if it fails, we will find out soon enough and we can just all go back a version and learn from it and revise the plans. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: thejaytiesto on June 02, 2015, 02:46:25 PM I don't see much issue here Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball. HD space is still going down in cost. 2TB HDDs are so incredibly cheap these days. In 10 years imagine, 2TB will be like what 2GB is for us now, and we will probably have cheap large SSD disks by then too. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: NorrisK on June 02, 2015, 02:58:59 PM How about some form of lossless compression? Would that at all be possible in case of blockchain data? Would be interesting..
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Buttknuckle on June 02, 2015, 03:02:27 PM I'm anti fork an my proposal is to just fire Gavin and be happy thereafter. And he should take his fanclub with him! One of the fud mongers speaks. DO you care to address the fact that the team opposing the fork has a conflict of interest? Of course not you will just continue to spread fud. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Fuserleer on June 02, 2015, 05:21:00 PM How about some form of lossless compression? Would that at all be possible in case of blockchain data? Would be interesting.. Block data is high entropy, and high entropy data doesn't compress very well, typically it actually increases in size. For example, search Google for a file called "million random numbers", it is a VERY high entropy file. Download it and compress it with as many compression tools you can get your hands on, in all cases the "compressed" file will be larger than the source. Compression of block data in the traditional sense is useless and pointless. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: GenTarkin on June 02, 2015, 06:08:12 PM To scale further by any decent increase ... would mean full nodes wanting an incentive for anyone to actually run a full node. Whos gonna build a server farm to just run full node and not get paid anything!? that would be an idiot thing to do. The protocol should somehow award full nodes.... Dont ask me how tho... LOL .... a portion of the tx fees? Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: nutildah on June 02, 2015, 06:18:19 PM Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public.
If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ElectricMucus on June 02, 2015, 06:29:27 PM Hahaha, where is the debate about alternative proposals, there have been some, yet nobody in the "pro-fork" camp even bothers to dismiss them.
Instead the thread is filled with the same arguments as everywhere else. I'm losing more an more opportunities to see this forum as anything else than a laughing stock. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: gentlemand on June 02, 2015, 06:40:29 PM Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public. If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork. It was never really alive in the first place. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ArticMine on June 02, 2015, 07:45:23 PM Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public. If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork. It was never really alive in the first place. Do you seriously believe that VISA could run its payment network using the punch card and tabulating machine technology of the 1930's and 1940's when credit cards first came out? Keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit is exactly the same: Assuming the current costs for bandwidth, CPU, memory, computer storage etc. will stay the same for ever. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ebliever on June 02, 2015, 07:53:50 PM Hahaha, where is the debate about alternative proposals, there have been some, yet nobody in the "pro-fork" camp even bothers to dismiss them. Instead the thread is filled with the same arguments as everywhere else. I'm losing more an more opportunities to see this forum as anything else than a laughing stock. +1 Here is where the anti-20 MB crowd had their chance, and blew it. I like bitcointalk, but it has an atmosphere that is kind of a mix of that Star Wars bar on Tatooine and a giant food fight. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: bitcreditscc on June 02, 2015, 07:59:58 PM how about we see these people argue it in this thread :- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0 where everything is summed up real quick but the real professionals
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ArticMine on June 02, 2015, 08:02:19 PM My proposal: Err on the side of decentralization. That's not a proposal but a stance, we need more ideas. I think we should do the 8mb fork and use the time before that gets full to figure out and find a new solution to the problem.The problem with the centralization argument is that that the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit are ignoring Nielsen's Law. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ (http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/) Here is that math: Internet bandwidth grows at an annualized rate of 50% a year. Now start with 1MBit/s in 2009 and figure out what the equivalent amount of bandwidth would be in mid 2016 when the proposed hard fork is supposed to take place. The answer is 20.9 MBit/s. So a 1MB blocksize limit at the start of 2009 is equivalent to 20.9 MB blocksize limit in mid 2016. Does it now make sense why Gavin picked 20 MB? He did the math, something the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit have simply chosen not to do. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ArticMine on June 02, 2015, 08:04:51 PM how about we see these people argue it in this thread :- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0 where everything is summed up real quick but the real professionals I believe jgarzik the OP of the thread is now on the side of keeping the 1 MB limit. He was not happy when I dug up his thread back in 2013. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: nutildah on June 02, 2015, 08:16:02 PM Does it now make sense why Gavin picked 20 MB? He did the math, something the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit have simply chosen not to do. Can you do the math on how much bigger the already bloated blockchain will become? Its size is already impractical for a new user who just wants to use BTC to get around having to use PayPal, Western Union etc. You will be encouraging reliance on centralization if you increase the limit. Lets face it: bitcoin will never come close to being as fast or convenient as a credit or debit card. There are some niches where it will continue to be an improvement upon pre-existing payment methods, but making the blockchain potentially 20x larger in size is just dumb. Why not a 5-fold increase to 5mb first instead of going straight for the 20x increase? Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ArticMine on June 02, 2015, 08:36:46 PM Does it now make sense why Gavin picked 20 MB? He did the math, something the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit have simply chosen not to do. Can you do the math on how much bigger the already bloated blockchain will become? Its size is already impractical for a new user who just wants to use BTC to get around having to use PayPal, Western Union etc. You will be encouraging reliance on centralization if you increase the limit. Lets face it: bitcoin will never come close to being as fast or convenient as a credit or debit card. There are some niches where it will continue to be an improvement upon pre-existing payment methods, but making the blockchain potentially 20x larger in size is just dumb. Why not a 5-fold increase to 5mb first instead of going straight for the 20x increase? A 5-fold increase would have been appropriate in 2013. One of the reasons that people use SPV Bitcoin wallets is because many people use mobile devices that are so heavily infected with DRM that one cannot run a full Bitcoin client. IOS being the perfect example, since Apple uses DRM to censor Bitcoin until early 2014. The device may be perfectly capable and have the CPU, memory, storage bandwith etc to run Bitcoin but the DRM prevents it. This is a serious centralization problem but it has nothing to do blocksize limits. For example one cannot run a full Bitcoin client on Windows 8.1 RT regardless of the capabilities of the device or the blocksize because the DRM in the device censors it. The key to decentralization in Bitcoin is to make sure that the enthusiast / hobbyist can run a full Bitcoin node using hardware and software that person controls. Bitcoin easily beat a credit card or debit card for transaction where 1) The parties are not in each other's presence (so cash is not an option) 2) Either the sender cannot get a credit / debit card or the receiver does not have a merchant account. This is a huge market that furthermore cannot be served by the likes of Coinbase. Those transactions have to be on the blockchain. Edit: Storage is even less of an issue than bandwidth. My .bitcoin directory is 37GB. 20x this becomes 740 GB. One can now easily purchase 4TB and 8TB drives. In the horizon there are 10TB+ SSD drives etc. It is the same issue as with bandwidth. One simple cannot in perpetuity constrain Bitcoin to current technology. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: nutildah on June 02, 2015, 08:53:42 PM The key to decentralization in Bitcoin is to make sure that the enthusiast / hobbyist can run a full Bitcoin node using hardware and software that person controls. Yes, which becomes less and less possible the bigger the blockchain becomes. So why jump straight to a 20-fold increase in potential blockchain size? Bitcoin easily beat a credit card or debit card for transaction where 1) The parties are not in each other's presence (so cash is not an option) 2) Either the sender cannot get a credit / debit card or the reciver does not have a merchant account. This is a huge market that furthermore cannot be served by the likes of Coinbase. Those transactions have to be on the blockchain. Nope, not in terms of speed. There's no faster payment method than swiping a credit card. Unless you decrease block lengths, bitcoin transactions will not catch up. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: nutildah on June 02, 2015, 08:56:00 PM To answer OP's question, Meni Rosenfeld just published this post today. Definitely worth a read, especially if you consider yourself a pro:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.0 Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ArticMine on June 02, 2015, 09:02:10 PM The key to decentralization in Bitcoin is to make sure that the enthusiast / hobbyist can run a full Bitcoin node using hardware and software that person controls. Yes, which becomes less and less possible the bigger the blockchain becomes. So why jump straight to a 20-fold increase in potential blockchain size? Bitcoin easily beat a credit card or debit card for transaction where 1) The parties are not in each other's presence (so cash is not an option) 2) Either the sender cannot get a credit / debit card or the reciver does not have a merchant account. This is a huge market that furthermore cannot be served by the likes of Coinbase. Those transactions have to be on the blockchain. Nope, not in terms of speed. There's no faster payment method than swiping a credit card. Unless you decrease block lengths, bitcoin transactions will not catch up. I disagree the fastest in person payment method is cash. Chip and pin credit card transactions and debit card transactions are way slower. Tap credit card payment methods approach cash in speed but then the merchant accepts the "stolen credit card risk" which is worse than a 0 confirmation XBT transaction. Have you ever been to a restaurant with a group of say 20 people are paying the bill with debit? I have and it can easily take 20 min to an hour. Enough for up to six XBT confirmations on the blockchain. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Unbelive on June 02, 2015, 09:10:08 PM I'm anti fork an my proposal is to just fire Gavin and be happy thereafter. And he should take his fanclub with him! Exactly this is what OP is saying. You are against why? And what is your solution then to solve the problem? None at all? Then leave to decide to those that have them. :) Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: nutildah on June 02, 2015, 09:39:12 PM I disagree the fastest in person payment method is cash. LOL I agree. I forgot about that one. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Stephen Gornick on June 02, 2015, 09:51:49 PM There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched. The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side. But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.
The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date. Sure, that's a lofty goal. Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs). Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: MicroGuy on June 03, 2015, 01:06:32 AM I think it's important to consider who Satoshi entrusted with the Alert Keys. Basically, he was giving Gavin his full endorsement with that gesture.
Gavin is like our Scotty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotty_%28Star_Trek%29), he's in charge of the Bitcoin engine room. Allow him to do his job and everything will be fine. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: celestio on June 03, 2015, 01:19:59 AM I think it's important to consider who Satoshi entrusted with the Alert Keys. Basically, he was giving Gavin his full endorsement with that gesture. Gavin is like our Scotty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotty_%28Star_Trek%29), he's in charge of the Bitcoin engine room. Allow him to do his job and everything will be fine. Decentralization>Centralization. There should be a team making decisions, not a sole person. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: MicroGuy on June 03, 2015, 01:27:21 AM I think it's important to consider who Satoshi entrusted with the Alert Keys. Basically, he was giving Gavin his full endorsement with that gesture. Gavin is like our Scotty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotty_%28Star_Trek%29), he's in charge of the Bitcoin engine room. Allow him to do his job and everything will be fine. Decentralization>Centralization. There should be a team making decisions, not a sole person. The only way to make Bitcoin purely decentralized would be to integrate a client voting mechanism. The system now requires a trusted developer with veto power. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: tokeweed on June 03, 2015, 05:47:12 AM I'm not anti nor pro the change. But I think if block size stays the same, off chain transactions might help with scalability. Not to mention the blockchain's growing size.
I guess it's also time to look at other technologies like Ripple or OT... Just my 2c. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Amph on June 03, 2015, 06:05:43 AM I think it's important to consider who Satoshi entrusted with the Alert Keys. Basically, he was giving Gavin his full endorsement with that gesture. Gavin is like our Scotty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotty_%28Star_Trek%29), he's in charge of the Bitcoin engine room. Allow him to do his job and everything will be fine. Decentralization>Centralization. There should be a team making decisions, not a sole person. how is having a team less centralized than having one dev? i still see it as a centralized, banks are centralized but they are not controlled by one user... Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: 7venCodes on June 03, 2015, 07:51:29 AM Long term, 20MB isn't going to be anywhere near enough block space to encompass full consumer adoption. This wont be the only fork in the road...I see 2-3 more by 2020.
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ebliever on June 03, 2015, 12:48:16 PM Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees). Exactly. Jack up the price on a product, throttle it's capacity, and let the competition pass it. A great way to kill bitcoin. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Muhammed Zakir on June 03, 2015, 01:35:35 PM Why do you guys go aginst this fork?
Quote from: PM from a dev Bear in mind 20mb is a LIMIT. We are not anywhere near having enough transaction demand to fill 20mb blocks anytime soon. But even if we hit 20mb tomorrow (won't happen), anyone can run a full node in pruning node, in which case old data is deleted and all you need is the UTXO set + a bit. So that's one or two gigabytes, hardly a big deal. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: neurotypical on June 03, 2015, 03:32:09 PM Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees). That way, not only does the little guy get to keep his node (when he would have had to shut it down due to increased expenses following this centralization hard fork), but he might be able to make money mining again as the transaction fees increase making it valuable for the little guy to mine (just like he used to do back in the glory days of bitcoin). But that solution (among many others I have brought up) brings decentralization back into bitcoin (and we want that), but since we are not in control here, then we will not get what we want (profitable mining again for the little guy). Instead we will receive centralization. Of course, my simple and elegant solution is not the best for the Gavinode, and therefore will not be implemented. All we can do as bitcoin holders is sit and watch as our monetary system becomes more centralized with each and every (TPS increase for your "benefit") hard fork. There is value in the bitcoin transactions, but it is not for you to be able to mine. By keeping the transaction fees low (more TPS but cheap transactions instead of fewer expensive transactions), Gavin ensures that only the big miners can compete for fees and block rewards, and therefore all mining profits must go to the Gavinode: It's not decentralised or even democratic. And it will even less be so if people switch to Gavins' fork. If PEOPLE choose to run nodes on XT, then XT will be the strongest chain. If people stick with Core, core will continue being the main chain. That's all. The devs can do whatever. At the end of the day, Bitcoin is nothing without the people running nodes. The people will decide what solution they prefer. How many actual people (or humans) are left running full nodes currently? I thought that only large ASIC/server farms were doing that now. This proposal centralizes bitcoin even more because it makes it more expensive to run a node meaning that it favors the large mining cartels. This is a centralization coup to control all the future development. If Gavin can get the big boys to switch, then he controls the network, because it would obviously be easier to get them to switch again next time. Because with each centralization fork (TPS scalability increase), there will be fewer and fewer nodes to convince to switch protocols each time until there is just one giant GVINODE!!! At that point, the only person he has to convince to make a change to the protocol will be himself, which is incidentally the way BitShares works for every user (not just the king). Every user has to convince themselves what fork they want to support, then they vote their conscious, and the blockchain counts the votes and instantly implements the consensus. Gavin is not just promoting his proposed bill, he is fast tracking it through Congress and will sign it into law weather you like it or not. He controls the protocol that mints your money. Of course he would not be so audacious as to raise the 21 million coin limit today, but when he controls the Gavinode, then pure power is just a mouse click away. Wow....first the TPP, then the Freedom Act, now the Gavinode. Is bitcoin more centralized today than it was 2 years ago? We continue down this path toward centralization for the perceived benefit of "scalability" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-02/americas-biggest-secret-wikileaks-raising-100000-reward-leaks-tpp http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-02/freedom-1-0-surveillance-state-maybe-senate-passes-un-amended-usa-freedom-act-bill The battle for decentralization is never ending. Good thing that we live in a community where our voices are heard and our votes are counted! "Making the protocol process transactions with the largest fees first" is a fair solution that maintains our decentralization, however, we do not have any control over what developments will occur to our bitcoin protocol now, and will only have less control over our money in the future. Is this what Satoshi envisioned? There are many political bitcoin laws that can be passed to bring back the glory days of decentralized and profitable mining for all, but these laws will not be passed because we cannot vote for them. Yes I am against this proposed centralization fork because I don't mind bitcoin being digital gold (valuable and costing a few cents extra to transmit). Let another coin be the highly circulated silver digital currency used for microtransactions. I go for the gold! Gold is not good for microtransactions, but it is the best store of wealth. Unless we adopt a more radical hard fork, then we cannot have both: Of course we could have our cake and eat it too. This is 2015, and it is more than possible, it is proven (but that would mean that we would have to become more wealthy than we were at the bitcoin peak in 2013)(and by the looks of it, nobody here likes money or wants to get rich and quit their day jobs): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078009.0;all Upping the transaction fees has a backslash: It will centralize Bitcoin in the sense of it will become a more and more elitist payment system as fees goes up, to the point only the wealthy can use it, when in fact Bitcoin is at it's best when operating in severely impoverished countries without banking infrastructures. You don't want to make the fees higher because those people would really suffer from it even if for us is not that much. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: fatguyyyyy on June 03, 2015, 08:43:59 PM Right now Bitcoin works fine .. if it's working, don't f*k with it
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: DooMAD on June 03, 2015, 10:37:31 PM Upping the transaction fees has a backslash: It will centralize Bitcoin in the sense of it will become a more and more elitist payment system as fees goes up, to the point only the wealthy can use it, when in fact Bitcoin is at it's best when operating in severely impoverished countries without banking infrastructures. You don't want to make the fees higher because those people would really suffer from it even if for us is not that much. Indeed, this is why the anti-fork crowd are campaigning so hard. That's exactly what they want. Guaranteed security for the whales, but any users making smaller transactions are forced to introduce risk, either by being forced off-chain, or gambling that the fee they've elected to include is sufficient to make it into the next block once they start to fill up. All those greedy one-percenter-wanabees are welcome to stay behind if they like. The masses won't support a system that doesn't support them, so it stands to reason that the outcome of a fork is highly likely (if not inevitable, perhaps). The fork ensures that fees remain reasonably small (but may still increase slightly), while still maintaining a healthy income for miners. It also ensures that we stay true to our current ethos that Bitcoin is open to anyone to use and take part, not restricted to the wealthy and privileged. The only people who are genuinely afraid of allowing the market to make its own decision, are the ones campaigning against the fork and for purely selfish reasons. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 03, 2015, 11:23:03 PM I still haven't figured out why there is even an opposition. How much larger to increase the blocksize is certainly open for debate, but it is undeniable that at this point, it does need to happen, be it to 2mb or 20mb. Gavin's point of increasing straight to 20mb is so that they won't have to go through this again next year when 2mb is getting near its cap, which is understandable, but I'm sure there would be a way to start off at 2mb or whatever and increase it automatically at set blocks.
The "I'm only against this because I don't like how Gavin is going about this" is annoying. I'm not a Gavin fanboi, I just support whoever is right at the moment. If you work with a team of people who are unwilling to work with you, and you feel strongly enough that you won't drop the issue, you do what Gavin is doing. Who cares if a dev team has 1 person or 30 people, as long as Bitcoin users decide what fork to use, it isn't centralization. A fork wouldn't even be needed if everyone just started working on a workable compromise. Bloat isn't the issue here, bandwidth could be an issue at 20mb, but again, the dev team could work out some feasible increase to satisfy everyone. There are already measures against dust transactions, such as minimum transaction sizes and transactions fees and such. If you don't want to fork the chain, you need to smoothly roll into the changes. If too much time is spent arguing, and we hit the 1mb cap before a fork is unavoidable. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: ArticMine on June 03, 2015, 11:41:48 PM Bandwidth has followed Nielsen's law http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ (http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/) of 50% growth per year. If one starts with 1 MB at the start of 2009 then the equivalent amount in mid 2016 is 21 MB. What is needed is not just an increase to 20 MB but also an ongoing increase at a rate that is a significant fraction of 50%. I understand that Gavin was talking around 20% annual compound rate of increase.
Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: cryptworld on June 04, 2015, 02:55:03 AM This is what I don't understand
People keep complaining about the block size increase, but nobody say what is the problem or what would they do instead Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Wary on June 04, 2015, 03:22:18 AM Is anybody discussing this proposal?
In case nobody does, here is the link. http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/ The author suggestion is (if I get it correctly) instead of using artificial restrictions, use natural market forces to regulate it. Currently all new minted bitcoins go to miners. Nodes do their work for free, while carrying expenses (bandwith etc). That is cost of maintaining network goes to nodes, while benefits - to miners and users. That's why number of nodes goes down. The author suggests enabling nodes to charge miners and users for their services. Everyone will be able to earn bitcoins by running a node. It'll fix both the problems: of block size and of node centralization. I think it is the ideal solution. Pity Satoshi didn't implemented it in the first place. But it's not too late to do it now. Is anybody working on it? Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: vm_mpn on June 04, 2015, 03:42:31 AM Is anybody discussing this proposal? In case nobody does, here is the link. http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/ The author suggestion is (if I get it correctly) instead of using artificial restrictions, use natural market forces to regulate it. Currently all new minted bitcoins go to miners. Nodes do their work for free, while carrying expenses (bandwith etc). That is cost of maintaining network goes to nodes, while benefits - to miners and users. That's why number of nodes goes down. The author suggests enabling nodes to charge miners and users for their services. Everyone will be able to earn bitcoins by running a node. It'll fix both the problems: of block size and of node centralization. I think it is the ideal solution. Pity Satoshi didn't implemented it in the first place. But it's not too late to do it now. Is anybody working on it? Just reading from your summary not sure if this is the problem being addressed here... Potential problem is a growing number of blockchain transactions and inability to pack them all into small 1Mb blocks, essentially running out of processing capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Wary on June 04, 2015, 03:56:05 AM Currently Bitcoin operates as a state: all bitcoin holders are taxed (it's property tax in form of inflation tax), then the taxes are distributed between miners.
While nodes are supposed to work for free, for the good of the community. All problems are handled by core developers and miners. So -We are taxed citizen (taxation without representation). -Miners are tax-receiving fatcats and IRS rolled together. -Nodes are conscious volunteers. -Core devs is parliament that issues laws (block limit etc). -Enforcement goes though threat of forking. That's a socialist system. Why should we have it? What is suggested instead is capitalism: nodes, miners and users provide services to each other for money. All the questions such as block size, number of nodes, compensation to miners and nodes are settled by the demand-supply laws. No political games, no enforcement is required, just free market. EDIT: nodes are ... Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Wary on June 04, 2015, 04:04:10 AM Is anybody discussing this proposal? In case nobody does, here is the link. http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/ The author suggestion is (if I get it correctly) instead of using artificial restrictions, use natural market forces to regulate it. Currently all new minted bitcoins go to miners. Nodes do their work for free, while carrying expenses (bandwith etc). That is cost of maintaining network goes to nodes, while benefits - to miners and users. That's why number of nodes goes down. The author suggests enabling nodes to charge miners and users for their services. Everyone will be able to earn bitcoins by running a node. It'll fix both the problems: of block size and of node centralization. I think it is the ideal solution. Pity Satoshi didn't implemented it in the first place. But it's not too late to do it now. Is anybody working on it? Just reading from your summary not sure if this is the problem being addressed here... Potential problem is a growing number of blockchain transactions and inability to pack them all into small 1Mb blocks, essentially running out of processing capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong. 1) block size limit 2) mining reward amount 3) minimal payment amount limit. From the other side, nodes have no incentives to spend their money on processors/storage/bandwith, because they are not paid for it, so we have to look for altruists that would work for free "for the good of community". So we have classical socialism with all the problems of socialism. Introducing payments between miners, nodes and users will transfer this socialist system into a normal market. EDIT: number two is taken care of by Satoshi. Because of the halvings, the mining reward will be gradually replaced by transaction fee. But the other market machinery we have to introduce ourselves. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: SaltySpitoon on June 04, 2015, 04:43:14 AM Currently Bitcoin operates as a state: all bitcoin holders are taxed (it's property tax in form of inflation tax), then the taxes are distributed between miners. While nodes are supposed to work for free, for the good of the community. All problems are handled by core developers and miners. So -We are taxed citizen (taxation without representation). -Miners are tax-receiving fatcats and IRS rolled together. -Nodes are conscious volunteers. -Core devs is parliament that issues laws (block limit etc). -Enforcement goes though threat of forking. That's a socialist system. Why should we have it? What is suggested instead is capitalism: nodes, miners and users provide services to each other for money. All the questions such as block size, number of nodes, compensation to miners and nodes are settled by the demand-supply laws. No political games, no enforcement is required, just free market. EDIT: nodes are ... Interesting theory, but users vote for everything. If the Honduran government puts out a fork of Bitcoin, its up to the users to decide whether or not they want to use it. Whether Gavin or the Core devs or whoever is participating in forking is successful is completely to do with survival of the fittest. If the Bitcoin users like Gavin's idea better, then it will become the dominant fork, or vice versa. I'd say that is probably the greatest form of representation. We represent ourselves. Miners are providing a service. They process transactions, and people making transactions pay for that service. Again, you can choose to include 0 tx fee if you want, but just like in real life, if you want a service done for you for free, expect to wait. You are also free to become a miner yourself. Core devs are groups of individuals who build on Bitcoin. If you don't like what they are doing, as I said before you can choose not to use their work, you can choose to work on Bitcoin yourself, you can really do whatever you want. I understand the concept, if the 1mb blocksize is kept, people will have to compete to get their transactions onto a block. There are a couple of issues with that. It could make Bitcoin less competitive as a payment system. Someone with just a few Bitcoins could completely fill blocks in effect keeping others from getting transactions through. Would be a very cheap way to perform a DOS attack on the Bitcoin network. Far cheaper than 51% attacking. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: vm_mpn on June 04, 2015, 05:14:12 AM Ditto... I do not know if mandatory fees and blockchain cleaning has been addressed, and I hope it will be at some point... However, even if all transactions are paid for and junk-free we still nowhere near scalability of other payment networks like Visa / MasterCard https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability)
I also think Bitcoin is entering level of maturity and acceptance where "forking" might become the biggest obstacle to it's growth... And this is not going to get any better with time. This was one of the counter-arguments of Peter T. to Galvin A. block size increase proposal... Other side wants to find a graceful and permeant solution which will not require hard forking every few years. Unfortunately, this solution is nowhere to be seen at the moment, at least not practical anyway. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Wary on June 04, 2015, 06:08:06 AM Interesting theory, but users vote for everything. It's like vote for US president. Once in 4 years, when there is Quote If the Bitcoin users like Gavin's idea better, then it will become the dominant fork, or vice versa. I'd say that is probably the greatest form of representation. We represent ourselves. Right. That's why Gavin is going to apply to major miners and exchanges. :) They are "us". They'll choose and we'll obediently follow. Out of fear of losing all value of our bitcoins, we will obediently download the "proper" wallet update.Quote Miners are providing a service. That's right. But the service is currently paid for not by fee, but by mining. Which is a property tax. Every bitcoiner is taxed at about 10% a year. These 10% are divided between miners. Sure, you can also include transaction fee, just like you can bribe an official. :) Thanks to Satoshi, in several halves time this problem will be fixed, the tax will be replaced by fees, i.e. socialism in this area will be replaced by market. But other areas will not be fixed, unless we do something about it.Quote Core devs are groups of individuals who build on Bitcoin. If you don't like what they are doing, as I said before you can choose not to use their work, you can choose to work on Bitcoin yourself, you can really do whatever you want. I can also go in politics and try to become the president. Chances are about the same.Quote I understand the concept, if the 1mb blocksize is kept, people will have to compete to get their transactions onto a block. The concept is bit different. The block size will be decided by each miner individually. Which blocks to propagate will be decided by nodes, individually. Which nodes to connect to will be decided by users, individually. This will allow market forces to work and to search for the most effective solution. Currently market doesn't work properly here, because users don't have enough power. We cannot choose miners, we cannot choose nodes. The only lever we have is, once in forever, in case of fork to (not)download wallet update. (BTW, altcoin is not real lever too). While core developers and miners have a number of levers. They decided on block size, they decided on "dust" transactions, they decide which features to include or postpone. So the market is not balanced, that's why it is more like a state that a market. In the suggested system we will have an option to choose between nodes and between miners. So they will have incentive to listen to us. Nodes will have an option to choose users and miners. So all market participants will have equal power: each is free to choose whom to deal with and whom not to. Developers will compete for miners. Miners will compete for nodes. Nodes will compete for users. Market as it supposed to be. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Wary on June 04, 2015, 06:18:26 AM Ditto... I do not know if mandatory fees and blockchain cleaning has been addressed, and I hope it will be at some point... However, even if all transactions are paid for and junk-free we still nowhere near scalability of other payment networks like Visa / MasterCard https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability) And without forking we, the users, will lose the last lever (apart from bitching on forums). Do we want the trajectory of bitcoins to be determined not by users, but by small group of people and by government that has plenty of levers to influence this group?I also think Bitcoin is entering level of maturity and acceptance where "forking" might become the biggest obstacle to it's growth... And this is not going to get any better with time. This was one of the counter-arguments of Peter T. to Galvin A. block size increase proposal... Other side wants to find a graceful and permeant solution which will not require hard forking every few years. Unfortunately, this solution is nowhere to be seen at the moment, at least not practical anyway. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: iCEBREAKER on June 04, 2015, 06:46:05 AM My dos tacoshi:
Quote First, we must wait and see how the infrastructure and ecosystem react/adapt to scarcity. Without this crucial empirical data, we cannot make informed future decisions about ideal block sizing. We cannot risk a civil war between BTC1 and BTC2 camps by forcing the issue prematurely (but if I were actually anti-BTC and pro-alt, I'd relish such a Great Schism). Second, we must use the results of the experiment with 1MB scarcity to decide on a preliminary blocksize increase, to somewhere between 2MB and 10MB. 20MB blocks can then be considered, if and only if the community, pruning/compression mechanisms, and TOR/DSL are ready to support them. As a compromise, I'll support an increase to 2MB ASAP, on the condition that we then maintain that limit until facts about market reaction to block real estate scarcity are ascertained. I'd be OK with closing the loop by doubling block size when block reward halves. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: manselr on June 04, 2015, 03:52:15 PM Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees). That way, not only does the little guy get to keep his node (when he would have had to shut it down due to increased expenses following this centralization hard fork), but he might be able to make money mining again as the transaction fees increase making it valuable for the little guy to mine (just like he used to do back in the glory days of bitcoin). But that solution (among many others I have brought up) brings decentralization back into bitcoin (and we want that), but since we are not in control here, then we will not get what we want (profitable mining again for the little guy). Instead we will receive centralization. The fork will not fill instantly, the "little guy" will be fine keeping his node, he may just have to get a bigger hard drive in a couple of years but that should be a lot cheaper due to storage medias ever dropping $/GB. I don't see how it will bring decentralization? Just because a few less gigabytes over years? Profitable mining for the little guy has and always will be dependent on external factors (Such as location, electric price, hardware price). The idea you give just clogs the network forcing anyone who doesn't want to pay large fees to switch to an altcoin, if this went through I would be very happy to be a litecoin bag holder. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Rampion on June 05, 2015, 06:23:21 AM There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched. The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side. But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork. The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date. Sure, that's a lofty goal. Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs). Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine. This is the best post in the thread IMO - this is exactly how I see it. Thanks, Stephen. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: iCEBREAKER on June 05, 2015, 06:55:56 AM There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched. The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side. But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork. The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date. Sure, that's a lofty goal. Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs). Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine. TYVM for eloquently expressing why when discussing the present situation many use words like coup, megalomania, Gavinista, and GavinCoin. XT would ideally be launched like a stock split, with shares in the new spin-off distributed pro-rata, not imposed from above as the mother of all scamcoins. As bad as the 20-cum-8MB proposal is, the core dev team meltdown it's revealing and compounding is even more potentially dangerous for the system's diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient antifragility suite. Title: Re: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? Post by: Agestorzrxx on June 05, 2015, 07:54:02 AM I am not object a hard fork. But i believe before we do it, we should study more. We may increase the block size successful in this time, but next time, what's we can do, it will be more difficult to do such a hard fork.
|
