|
Title: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 02, 2015, 08:15:25 AM http://xtnodes.com/ Bitcoin can support a large scale and it must, for all sorts of reasons. Amongst others: 1. Currencies have network effects. A currency that has few users is simply not competitive with currencies that have many. There's no such thing as a settlement currency for high value transactions only, as evidenced by the ever-dropping importance of gold. 2. A decentralised currency that the vast majority can't use doesn't change the amount of centralisation in the world. Most people will still end up using banks, with all the normal problems. You cannot solve a problem by creating a theoretically pure solution that's out of reach of ordinary people: just ask academic cryptographers! 3. Growth is a part of the social contract. It always has been. The best quote Gregory can find to suggest Satoshi wanted small blocks is a one sentence hypothetical example about what *might* happen if Bitcoin users became "tyrannical" as a result of non-financial transactions being stuffed in the block chain. That position makes sense because his scaling arguments assuming payment-network-sized traffic and throwing DNS systems or whatever into the mix could invalidate those arguments, in the absence of merged mining. But Satoshi did invent merged mining, and so there's no need for Bitcoin users to get "tyrannical": his original arguments still hold. 4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used for infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for that will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and startups that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on the assumption that the market will grow significantly. It's a gamble at best because Bitcoin's success is not guaranteed, but if the block chain cannot grow it's a gamble that is guaranteed to be lost. So why should anyone go through the massive hassle of setting up exchanges, without the lure of large future profits? 5. Bitcoin needs users, lots of them, for its political survival. There are many people out there who would like to see digital cash disappear, or be regulated out of existence. They will argue for that in front of governments and courts .... some already are. And if they're going to lose those arguments, the political and economic damage of getting rid of Bitcoin must be large enough to make people think twice. That means it needs supporters, it needs innovative services, it needs companies, and it needs legal users making legal payments: as many of them as possible. If Bitcoin is a tiny, obscure currency used by drug dealers and a handful of crypto-at-any-cost geeks, the cost of simply banning it outright will seem trivial and the hammer will drop. There won't be a large scale payment network OR a high-value settlement network. And then the world is really screwed, because nobody will get a second chance for a very long time. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009815.html Most actors in the space (exchanges, payment processors, big pool operators) have stated, in a scattershot way over time, that they support a blocksize increase. Also some well known people like Roger Ver and Andreas Antonopoulos support bigger blocks. -------------------- Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks: “We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less." Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux" Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks: "It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2" BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x" Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.” BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system." http://up.picr.de/22793856ec.png http://up.picr.de/22793858fy.png -------- Total known mining power supporting big blocks: 68.86% 8MB: F2Pool (19.77%): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese) AntPool (16.68%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/1c7ce8b32ffa6f3ceb6a343828bc6d9fbf10a06bb884ecee042d6740716d0bda BTCChina (11.86%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/498e4a4225a9cd147ec5091fbcf2a3ca2a9a0f8e18566af50e37c1802360b82b BW pool (7.14%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/0fe25d362c3567ec7d9b485aa8d77c10c27bc464c610eab8639fc3876518cd4a KNCMiner (4.63%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4022ca10810c7ce69a17bc612a94c1114cabd7fa8141106c12b0c402ecd68076 Slush (4.63%): https://twitter.com/AlenaSatoshi/status/631369094718164992 21 Inc (4.15%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/fa142a8cac0a292d8319b8f8cd048dcb6c577dafcdd0a96842eedfeb9ab07927 Huobi (unknown): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese) http://up.picr.de/22882389qx.png https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/ -------------- first block mined with XT https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000174419fa2ba5003e123dbd97c6982aff1863f016b04789d 12.5 % XT Nodes - 19.08.2015 http://up.picr.de/22865187od.jpg -------------- http://up.picr.de/22874683mv.png -------------- Time is running out - 1 MB blocks are not enough: https://i.imgur.com/Rd3PDPB.gif Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks Post by: Lauda on August 02, 2015, 08:35:28 AM We all know that some have plans and are going to try to keep the system available to less people for as long as they can. Most of the arguments that were against bigger blocks are pretty much invalid.
Even increasing it to 2MB only (which can't surely harm anything) would be a huge benefit compared to 1MB. I'm just waiting to see when and if the Core developers are going to add bigger blocks. I would not prefer switching to XT, but they aren't leaving people many options. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on August 02, 2015, 09:18:05 PM 4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used for infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for that will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and startups that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on the assumption that the market will grow significantly. And further to that, there's the mining infrastructure as well. Transaction fees generated by the network seldom exceed $10k USD (https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd), sometimes averaging under $5k. Once the block reward halves a few more times, that won't be sufficient to incentivise miners. Limiting the number of transactions in a block also limits the quantity of fees that can be generated. More users paying more fees equals more incentive to secure the network. Also, a few whales sending megabucks every once in a while would result in an irregular flow of fees and mining empty or near-empty blocks will be of little value to the miner (in future), whereas millions of ordinary people sending several transactions a day means a steady flow of fees. Unless you want a significant proportion of miners securing a different blockchain in future, you better make sure Bitcoin's blockchain remains the most attractive and profitable. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BillyBobZorton on August 02, 2015, 09:25:53 PM Anyone that has been following this for a while knows that we need both approaches, the biggest blocksize and the LN off the chain solutions. Even Andreas Antonopoulos is advocating for both. Seriously it's time to get the blocksize bigger, start with 2 or start with 8 I dont really care, but lets get this done already and move on into developing other features.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 02, 2015, 09:35:11 PM Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything?
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Alley on August 02, 2015, 09:59:05 PM Why doesn't it scale?
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 02, 2015, 10:08:10 PM Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything? Wrong. While it may not be done efficiently, Bitcoin does scale. Similar things would apply to video quality. Just because a raw 4K movie easily takes up more than 100GB of space, that doesn't mean that we won't be using. People have complained about storage, but that will soon be solved with pruning being fully implemented (now it is only partially).If we assume (assuming that they are full) that we have only 10MB blocks (which should be enough for some time), that's only 1,440MB of bandwidth per day (which is less than what I spend just using Chrome in a single day). Current pruning requires one to keep the last 255 blocks which means only 2.55 GB of storage would be needed (I'm pretty sure that everyone has this). Now if we factor in the potential of the lightning network and sidechains, it is going to scale much better. However, these things need time as we are surfing in unexplored waters. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BitCoinDream on August 02, 2015, 10:21:58 PM I'd be careful to listen to Mike Hearn. If he can covince the current core devs, it is fine. But, one should not join his XT fork anyway. He wants to ignore the longest chain. Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r03i/mike_hearn_is_saying_fork_might_ignore_the/
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BillyBobZorton on August 02, 2015, 10:48:41 PM Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything? Wrong. While it may not be done efficiently, Bitcoin does scale. Similar things would apply to video quality. Just because a raw 4K movie easily takes up more than 100GB of space, that doesn't mean that we won't be using. People have complained about storage, but that will soon be solved with pruning being fully implemented (now it is only partially).If we assume (assuming that they are full) that we have only 10MB blocks (which should be enough for some time), that's only 1,440MB of bandwidth per day (which is less than what I spend just using Chrome in a single day). Current pruning requires one to keep the last 255 blocks which means only 2.55 GB of storage would be needed (I'm pretty sure that everyone has this). Now if we factor in the potential of the lightning network and sidechains, it is going to scale much better. However, these things need time as we are surfing in unexplored waters. Yeah, Bitcoin will scale up as much as we need to, going worldwide. We'll take all these fuckers down including Mastercard and Visa and WU. It will scale proving everyone wrong just like TCP/IP proved everyone wrong. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 02, 2015, 11:45:24 PM Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything? Wrong. While it may not be done efficiently, Bitcoin does scale. Similar things would apply to video quality. Just because a raw 4K movie easily takes up more than 100GB of space, that doesn't mean that we won't be using. People have complained about storage, but that will soon be solved with pruning being fully implemented (now it is only partially).If we assume (assuming that they are full) that we have only 10MB blocks (which should be enough for some time), that's only 1,440MB of bandwidth per day (which is less than what I spend just using Chrome in a single day). Current pruning requires one to keep the last 255 blocks which means only 2.55 GB of storage would be needed (I'm pretty sure that everyone has this). Now if we factor in the potential of the lightning network and sidechains, it is going to scale much better. However, these things need time as we are surfing in unexplored waters. Yes Bitcoin might be able to scale in the future with the help of lightning network and other tools. So why the urgent need for a hard fork when it doesn't solve anything? You said it. "these things need time". So why not wait for lightning network to be operational before we go ahead with a dangerous fork? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Meuh6879 on August 02, 2015, 11:50:14 PM wait the halving to evolve the block size ... just to see the best thing of this decade. ;D
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Alley on August 03, 2015, 12:57:28 AM Clearly XT is a non starter. Nodes keep dropping and were never more then 3% of total nodes. It has to be core devs or nothing.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 03, 2015, 01:01:20 AM I'd be careful to listen to Mike Hearn. If he can covince the current core devs, it is fine. But, one should not join his XT fork anyway. He wants to ignore the longest chain. Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r03i/mike_hearn_is_saying_fork_might_ignore_the/ quite simply, I do not trust Mike Hearn. He has expressed too many authoritarian and questionable ideas to ever be trusted with big decisions in Bitcoin. What a shame because his programming skills are powerful. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 03, 2015, 09:18:32 AM I'd be careful to listen to Mike Hearn. If he can covince the current core devs, it is fine. But, one should not join his XT fork anyway. He wants to ignore the longest chain. Read: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39r03i/mike_hearn_is_saying_fork_might_ignore_the/ quite simply, I do not trust Mike Hearn. He has expressed too many authoritarian and questionable ideas to ever be trusted with big decisions in Bitcoin. What a shame because his programming skills are powerful. You dont have to trust him. XT (Mike+Gavins work) will include bigger blocks and not more. So i will go with that. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: spartacusrex on August 03, 2015, 11:15:49 AM I want-ed bigger blocks. Still do. I thought everybody did.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1107731.0 The issue for me now is this : Who knows more about Bitcoin than the CORE devs ? No-One. That's who. Are we honestly going to tell GMaxwell - Sorry Greg. You're Wrong (Although I can find no other 'technical' instance where this is the case..) ? The Network CAN handle bigger blocks and your fears about what might go wrong, are incorrect. Boom! ??? This is not a trust issue. Just people with different opinions about a very technical and complicated issue. (It is NOT simple) Go with the Heart, I follow Mike+Gavin, Go with the Brain, I have to follow #GMAX. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 06, 2015, 03:25:34 PM "I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find interesting."
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009902.html Gavin is right here. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Slark on August 06, 2015, 03:52:13 PM I wonder if this issue with bigger blocks will the be the problem everytime we discuss it. It is never ending debate when people argue: "do we need it, or not" all over again.
I have one advice for critics: please stay with Floppy Drive 3.5'. Suddenly everyone are wiser that bitcoin developers when it comes to block size... Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 06, 2015, 03:55:00 PM I wonder if this issue with bigger blocks will the be the problem everytime we discuss it. It is never ending debate when people argue: "do we need it, or not" all over again. I have one advice for critics: please stay with Floppy Drive 3.5'. Suddenly everyone are wiser that bitcoin developers when it comes to block size... it will end because the majority will adapt a software that supports bigger blocks. :) or bitcoin will never go mainstream. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BillyBobZorton on August 06, 2015, 04:29:29 PM "I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what I find interesting." http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009902.html Gavin is right here. True, but running a node will be a pain in the ass, the problem is not HDD space, the problem is bandwith space. If the blockchain starts being too big a lot of people will be left marginalized as they will not be able to download the blockchain unless they spend ages on it. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on August 06, 2015, 04:44:19 PM What's the main reason Core Dev's don't want to allow bigger blocks please, somebody?
I'm not a techie expert, I've read Gavin's & Mike's ideas on why we need bigger blocks, I've witnessed the stress testing but why are Core Dev's so hesitant to comply? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 06, 2015, 05:13:38 PM What's the main reason Core Dev's don't want to allow bigger blocks please, somebody? I'm not a techie expert, I've read Gavin's & Mike's ideas on why we need bigger blocks, I've witnessed the stress testing but why are Core Dev's so hesitant to comply? some of the devs are worried about the bandwith space. but that is not a problem, even with 5 ,7 or 10 MB blocks. hunderts of millions of people around the world could run a full node with their bandwith space. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ no problem here. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 08, 2015, 01:07:53 PM Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything? Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end. I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 08, 2015, 01:11:01 PM Bitcoin doesn't scale so why act like raising the block size would change anything? Wrong. While it may not be done efficiently, Bitcoin does scale. Similar things would apply to video quality. Just because a raw 4K movie easily takes up more than 100GB of space, that doesn't mean that we won't be using. People have complained about storage, but that will soon be solved with pruning being fully implemented (now it is only partially).If we assume (assuming that they are full) that we have only 10MB blocks (which should be enough for some time), that's only 1,440MB of bandwidth per day (which is less than what I spend just using Chrome in a single day). Current pruning requires one to keep the last 255 blocks which means only 2.55 GB of storage would be needed (I'm pretty sure that everyone has this). Now if we factor in the potential of the lightning network and sidechains, it is going to scale much better. However, these things need time as we are surfing in unexplored waters. Yes Bitcoin might be able to scale in the future with the help of lightning network and other tools. So why the urgent need for a hard fork when it doesn't solve anything? You said it. "these things need time". So why not wait for lightning network to be operational before we go ahead with a dangerous fork? So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 08, 2015, 01:17:12 PM I like that quote:
I'm not as connected as some people are to the reddits and githubs and IRC rooms where a lot of the bigwigs talk about this stuff. Does anyone know if consensus is anywhere close on this block size increase issue? It doesn't seem off topic here to ask given the direct relation between the attacks/tests and the potential increase. I know the debate has been rancorous, I wonder if anyone has a gauge on where we stand at the moment on this. No sign of consensus as of yesterday. The "old devs" (Gavin, Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik) want to increase the limit before the traffic gets close to saturation. The "new devs" (Adam Back, Greg Maxwell, Peter Wuille, Luke-Jr, and others -- most of them working for Blockstream Inc) want instead to see the network saturate so that a "fee market" develops. Since it is a discrete (binary, boolean) choice, no compromise is possible. Gavin backed down from his original 20 MB proposal to 8 MB, starting early next year, with automatic increases afterwards. Jeff proposed a "compromise" plan with 2 MB blocks. Peter Wuillie made a counter-proposal to increase the limit only in 2017 -- that is, no compromise. I don't trust either sides. Gavin has some behaviour of extortion i don't like. And Hearn has dangerous ideas. But Maxwell, Luke-Jr and others have their own private business reasons to not increase blocks. Thats like politicians that work for banks or big companies. You can't await them making sane decisions. For me that means that we need to do it ourself. We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time. So we need to chose bigger blocks when we can chose to. And deny all other crap developers want to push onto us. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 09, 2015, 10:18:19 PM Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end. The spam attacks will stop once we reach a acceptable level of fee's. Currently it's possible to make transactions without paying any fees. That is not good for Bitcoin as it makes it easy to bloat the blockchain. I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about. Please explain how the block size will scale with a hard fork increasing the block size to 8MB? So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on August 10, 2015, 09:00:45 AM So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? It's pretty clear that's not what he's saying. He's alluding to the absurdity of imposing an artificial limit on the system just to bypass it with a third party network built on top. Bitcoin will cope just fine as long as it can support enough transactions to remain sustainable. However, there are still plenty of people who are skeptical that the Lightning Network by itself would be sufficient to achieve this scalability. Just about every single opponent of larger blocks is completely fixated on micro-payments and thinks that once those are swept under the carpet that the scalability issue is magically solved forever. That's just plain wrong. Larger blocks will become a necessity as the usage increases and prolonging the inevitable is only going to result in more disruption later. I trust the original, unhindered Bitcoin implementation to scale far better than an artificially crippled implementation with a new bit bolted on top. Saying you support a 1MB limit and the lightning network is like saying you want to limit the amount of material you can pass in a bowel movement and fit a colostomy bag to deal with the rest because that's somehow better. Get rid of the artificial bottleneck and let nature take its course. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 10, 2015, 11:12:40 AM Yes Bitcoin might be able to scale in the future with the help of lightning network and other tools. So why the urgent need for a hard fork when it doesn't solve anything? It does not solve anything? That is a understatement. 8 MB blocks should help us gain the needed time. Who knows exactly when something like the lightning network or sidechains are going to be fully functional.You said it. "these things need time". So why not wait for lightning network to be operational before we go ahead with a dangerous fork? The developers aren't really saying much about a timeline. Bigger blocks will be needed in the future even with other solutions. Why should we wait when it is much easier to do the fork now? The fork is not dangerous at all if we use the proper consensus rules. -snip- Wrong. They are just people who know how to properly code Bitcoin, this does not mean that they have the ultimate knowledge related to cryptography, cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin.Who knows more about Bitcoin than the CORE devs ? No-One. That's who. Go with the Heart, I follow Mike+Gavin, Following your heart is a common misconception, unless you think that you feel things with your heart. ::) I don't trust either sides. Gavin has some behaviour of extortion i don't like. And Hearn has dangerous ideas. Exactly. While Gavin definitely did do a few things that I do not like, he's at least not acting like a politician. The sole reason for which people related to Blockstream are going to do everything to stop the increase, is profit.But Maxwell, Luke-Jr and others have their own private business reasons to not increase blocks. Thats like politicians that work for banks or big companies. You can't await them making sane decisions. For me that means that we need to do it ourself. We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time. -snip- Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: AtheistAKASaneBrain on August 10, 2015, 12:07:38 PM Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end. The spam attacks will stop once we reach a acceptable level of fee's. Currently it's possible to make transactions without paying any fees. That is not good for Bitcoin as it makes it easy to bloat the blockchain. I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about. Please explain how the block size will scale with a hard fork increasing the block size to 8MB? So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? The idea is incremental of 8mb in synchrony with moore's law. This way we should be able to scale up as far as we need to. https://i.imgur.com/QoTEOO2.gif The fees must stay low tho.. im not saying they shouldn't be a bit higher if needed, but definitely they must feel LOW or else it will be a mass failure. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 10, 2015, 03:11:36 PM if you want Bitcoin on the Moon - support bigger blocks. there is no other way.
Satoshi himself never wanted 1 MB blocks - he had 32 MB blocks! Satoshi knew the 1MB was a risk to his long-term vision for a global competitor to the likes of VISA, but he did massive code changes, and frequently. He just assumed it would be easily increased or removed when the time was right. At the moment the only way to support bigger blocks is bitcoin XT: http://xtnodes.com/ Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: thejaytiesto on August 10, 2015, 03:35:47 PM The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 10, 2015, 03:49:21 PM The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 10, 2015, 08:44:23 PM I trust the original, unhindered Bitcoin implementation to scale far better than an artificially crippled implementation with a new bit bolted on top. The original? Aren't we running the original now? Saying you support a 1MB limit and the lightning network is like saying you want to limit the amount of material you can pass in a bowel movement and fit a colostomy bag to deal with the rest because that's somehow better. Get rid of the artificial bottleneck and let nature take its course. That's a bad analogy. We need to have limits otherwise the block chain would grow so massive that most people would not be able to run full nodes. And what's the point of risking that when we can have third party solutions? It does not solve anything? That is a understatement. 8 MB blocks should help us gain the needed time. Who knows exactly when something like the lightning network or sidechains are going to be fully functional. The developers aren't really saying much about a timeline. Bigger blocks will be needed in the future even with other solutions. Why should we wait when it is much easier to do the fork now? The fork is not dangerous at all if we use the proper consensus rules. What needed time? I haven't noticed that we have any urgent issues with full blocks? If there are full blocks the market will adapt and either pay higher fees or develop alternatives like lightning network. And so what if 90% thinks we should have bigger blocks? I still don't think it's the best possible option. That's like saying just because the majority of the people voted for Obama makes him the best possible president. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on August 10, 2015, 09:57:59 PM I trust the original, unhindered Bitcoin implementation to scale far better than an artificially crippled implementation with a new bit bolted on top. The original? Aren't we running the original now? The original never had a 1MB cap to begin with and the cap was never intended to be permanent. It was something done in haste that should have been reconsidered long ago. It was never part of the plan that the network should run with full blocks for the rest of forever. Saying you support a 1MB limit and the lightning network is like saying you want to limit the amount of material you can pass in a bowel movement and fit a colostomy bag to deal with the rest because that's somehow better. Get rid of the artificial bottleneck and let nature take its course. That's a bad analogy. We need to have limits otherwise the block chain would grow so massive that most people would not be able to run full nodes. And what's the point of risking that when we can have third party solutions? The 1mb cap wasn't introduced because of concerns over the bandwidth requirements for nodes, it was intended to be an anti-spam measure, but apparently it failed miserably in that goal. The blockchain didn't "grow huge" before the cap was put in place. Also, it's not a "solution" at all if it doesn't solve the problem of limiting the amount of fees the miners can collect. Nodes won't be any use at all without sufficiently incentivised miners to secure the network. In order to generate more fees for miners, it will be necessary to accommodate more transactions over time. Users want to get their transactions on a blockchain. If Bitcoin isn't the simplest and most convenient way to do that because you're funneling transactions into your lightning colostomy bag network, another coin will come along that hasn't been artificially crippled and doesn't rely on a third party bolted on top. If that coin turns out to be a more attractive proposition for users, what's their reason to continue using Bitcoin? If users are then transacting on another network, why are miners going to stick around to secure this one? Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee. And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue. Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes. If it doesn't, something else will. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Alley on August 10, 2015, 11:12:48 PM Are the core devs even doing anything about this? Or is Gavin the only one being pro active? Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix?
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Soros Shorts on August 11, 2015, 04:01:01 AM The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install. How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully? If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: jdbtracker on August 11, 2015, 04:20:28 AM a precarious situation indeed. If we do not change the structure of the blocks we end up with serious problems when the network is unable to validate the transactions. Just imagine one day when there is a massive black out caused by a solar storm, backing up the network into the millions of transactions causing delays for days, we have seen this before. A larger blocksize would clear the back-log in minutes.
Does it scale? yeah it will but not in it's current form. Either we improve the cryptography, the file compression, restructure the network or increase the blocksize... either way we will be forced to choose and we will cause a fork within the community. The businesses relying on the cash flow from customers will choose bigger blocks to keep momentum up... they cannot afford not to. The purists will improve the cryptographic compression to allow equal participation by the lowliest nodes in the network. Others will partition the network to complimentary chains working in tandem: off-chain transactions. All these are viable and proving the worth of the Bitcoin Network... It's forcing us to adapt. Me? I personally would prefer that bandwidth be kept to a minimum, all choices are on the table. It's not just Bitcoin's network that is at stake but the thousands of complimentary chains that will eventually be built on top and around Bitcoin. The ecosystem may become so saturated that there could come a time when all available bandwidth is used up across the globe causing delays that no programmer will be able to solve. We will bog down the internet. Increasing the size of the blocks is a band-aid solution... we need a solution that we have yet to think of. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Mickeyb on August 11, 2015, 04:25:09 AM All of this situation is very worrisome and the solution needs to be found asap. I am for example waiting to see how will this unfold in order to invest more and I am sure many other people are doing the same. I mean why would I buy at $265 if I can buy much, much lower when shit hits the fan and a community divides in 2 sides. This is completely obvious.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: EternalWingsofGod on August 11, 2015, 04:34:37 AM The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development. In a sense at least it is manageable with PCs Bitcoin would have been extremely concentrated up to the late 1990's Unfortunately your right about the amount of bandwidth each user has to run nodes and it will be a significant problem unless bandwidth development accelerates at a similar pace to HDD. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 11, 2015, 07:36:25 AM That's a bad analogy. We need to have limits otherwise the block chain would grow so massive that most people would not be able to run full nodes. I do not agree with either parts of your post. Filling up a block costs money, and I doubt that someone would be able to make huge blocks without that costing them a lot. Even if this was the case, a simple higher cap can be implemented to prevent this from happening.And what's the point of risking that when we can have third party solutions? There is no risking with a proper hard fork. Why risk using third party solutions; i.e. meaning we stop relying on the protocol itself? What needed time? You have not? What about those recent spam attacks that happened? A lot of people were complaining about their transactions not going through because the blocks were full. The market did not adapt that time, nor do I understand why people think that higher fees are going to be beneficial to Bitcoin.I haven't noticed that we have any urgent issues with full blocks? If there are full blocks the market will adapt and either pay higher fees or develop alternatives like lightning network. And so what if 90% thinks we should have bigger blocks? I still don't think it's the best possible option. Wrong. Nobody is saying that it is the best possible option. If the majority vote for X, then you go with X regardless of what is best. Is this not the way that decentralized consensus was supposed to work around here?That's like saying just because the majority of the people voted for Obama makes him the best possible president. Obviously people have different opinions when we talk about the best possible option, so there is none. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: fryarminer on August 11, 2015, 02:18:48 PM The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install. How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully? If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using. My question is, what's the rush? If you're gonna run a node, you're gonna run a node. Its going to be running from now until forever so what's the rush? It's not like you're waiting for Gimp to load so you can work. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 11, 2015, 03:01:46 PM The 1mb cap wasn't introduced because of concerns over the bandwidth requirements for nodes, it was intended to be an anti-spam measure, but apparently it failed miserably in that goal. The blockchain didn't "grow huge" before the cap was put in place. Also, it's not a "solution" at all if it doesn't solve the problem of limiting the amount of fees the miners can collect. Nodes won't be any use at all without sufficiently incentivised miners to secure the network. In order to generate more fees for miners, it will be necessary to accommodate more transactions over time. Users want to get their transactions on a blockchain. If Bitcoin isn't the simplest and most convenient way to do that because you're funneling transactions into your lightning colostomy bag network, another coin will come along that hasn't been artificially crippled and doesn't rely on a third party bolted on top. If that coin turns out to be a more attractive proposition for users, what's their reason to continue using Bitcoin? If users are then transacting on another network, why are miners going to stick around to secure this one? Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee. And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue. Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes. If it doesn't, something else will. Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money. And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees? I do not agree with either parts of your post. Filling up a block costs money, and I doubt that someone would be able to make huge blocks without that costing them a lot. Even if this was the case, a simple higher cap can be implemented to prevent this from happening. There is no risking with a proper hard fork. Why risk using third party solutions; i.e. meaning we stop relying on the protocol itself? So you are advocating a even higher block size if the spammers fill up the 8MB blocks? You have not? What about those recent spam attacks that happened? A lot of people were complaining about their transactions not going through because the blocks were full. The market did not adapt that time, nor do I understand why people think that higher fees are going to be beneficial to Bitcoin. The market did not adapt? Are you kidding? The only people that complained were people that used no fees or very low fees. Those transactions should not be on the blockchain to begin with. They are SPAM. Which shows that the current anti SPAM system works. Wrong. Nobody is saying that it is the best possible option. If the majority vote for X, then you go with X regardless of what is best. Is this not the way that decentralized consensus was supposed to work around here? Obviously people have different opinions when we talk about the best possible option, so there is none. The best option is out there. It's just that we cannot agree what the best option is. And therefore we cannot reach consensus. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 11, 2015, 03:51:17 PM Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks: “We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less." Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux" Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks: "It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2" BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x" Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.” BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system." http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100 http://up.picr.de/22793856ec.png http://up.picr.de/22793858fy.png Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 11, 2015, 04:00:44 PM So you are advocating a even higher block size if the spammers fill up the 8MB blocks? I did not state that.The market did not adapt? Are you kidding? The only people that complained were people that used no fees or very low fees. Those transactions should not be on the blockchain to begin with. They are SPAM. If by adapt you mean making Bitcoin obsolete due to high fees, then yes it did. A TX that includes the standard fee is not a spam transaction. Standard fees were not enough at that time for some.Which shows that the current anti SPAM system works. The best option is out there. It's just that we cannot agree what the best option is. And therefore we cannot reach consensus. How do you define 'best'? Are you saying that there is a perfect solution among one of the proposals? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: thejaytiesto on August 11, 2015, 04:23:14 PM Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks: “We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less." Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux" Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks: "It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2" BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x" Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.” BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system." http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100 http://up.picr.de/22793856ec.png http://up.picr.de/22793858fy.png Damn XT already got 44% of the hashing power? How can I follow the statistics in real life of this? It will be interesting to see if it reaches super majority. It's really growing fast it seems. Maybe we have bigger blocks sooner than expected. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 11, 2015, 04:35:22 PM I did not state that. The please explain what you meant by: -snip- Even if this was the case, a simple higher cap can be implemented to prevent this from happening. -snip- If by adapt you mean making Bitcoin obsolete due to high fees, then yes it did. A TX that includes the standard fee is not a spam transaction. Standard fees were not enough at that time for some. That's FUD. We don't even max out the blocks today. So it won't be obsolete anytime soon. It's only healthy to have a working fee system. Who decides what a standard fee is? I think the market should, you don't seem to be of the same opinion? How do you define 'best'? Are you saying that there is a perfect solution among one of the proposals? I have my opinion and you have yours thats all I'm saying. Obviously people disagree on what the best proposal is. I think we need more time to debate what the best option is. Therefore I think it would be best to not do anything hasty such as BitcoinXT. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 11, 2015, 04:50:45 PM That's FUD. We don't even max out the blocks today. So it won't be obsolete anytime soon. It's only healthy to have a working fee system. Who decides what a standard fee is? In that case I was talking about the natural growth, not the average calculated when spam transactions are included. No, it is not FUD. Bit by bit some are trying to make Bitcoin lose its advantages such as low fees. I think the market should, you don't seem to be of the same opinion? Actually I believe that with Bitcoin a set of fixed rules related to almost everything is best. People can not be trusted with anything these days and love exploiting things. Letting "market" decide would eventually lead to something like sending $1 and paying $2 as a fee. I have my opinion and you have yours thats all I'm saying. Obviously people disagree on what the best proposal is. People can't agree because almost everyone around here is closed minded. At first I was willing to accept Gavins proposal, however that did not turn out to be the best choice of action and thus I began changing my stance towards this matter. I'm willing to compensate to a 2 MB increase as Jeff proposed and I openly welcome other solutions (e.g. sidechains, lightning network). However, people on the other side of the argument do not seem to want to compensate to anything. It's their way or no way at all.I think we need more time to debate what the best option is. Therefore I think it would be best to not do anything hasty such as BitcoinXT. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 11, 2015, 05:30:10 PM The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install. How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully? If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using. in my view it is not a problem to initialize my full node and wait 10-15 minutes. but your assumption is based on the bitcoin software from today. the software will be improved over time. things will work faster - pruning for example. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 13, 2015, 03:43:35 PM more than 64% of total hashing power are in favor of 8 MB blocks. i dont know if KnC miner is already included here - so it could be more than 75%.
https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/ Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 13, 2015, 04:03:01 PM Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks: “We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less." Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux" Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks: "It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2" BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x" Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.” BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system." http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100 http://up.picr.de/22793856ec.png http://up.picr.de/22793858fy.png Damn XT already got 44% of the hashing power? How can I follow the statistics in real life of this? It will be interesting to see if it reaches super majority. It's really growing fast it seems. Maybe we have bigger blocks sooner than expected. Only idiots dont see larger block is inevitable. Its sad that the bitcoin core devs act like a bunch of children and force us to choose XT to voice our vote. They think because they're core devs, we have to follow them? idiots Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 13, 2015, 04:09:07 PM Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks: “We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less." Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux" Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks: "It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2" BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x" Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.” BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system." http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100 What i want to see if Theymos will follow his words and ..... stop supporting all the services above on his site "www.bitcoin.org".... LOL lets see if he can shoot himself in the foot. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on August 13, 2015, 04:18:18 PM more than 64% of total hashing power are in favor of 8 MB blocks. i dont know if KnC miner is already included here - so it could be more than 75%. https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/ While I certainly support larger blocks, I'd err on the side of caution with those percentages. The pool operators may well be pushing for 8mb blocks, but there's no guarantee that everyone currently contributing hash power to those pools will go along with it. The numbers will be subject to change as miners switch pools to suit their blocksize preference. We're already seeing some desperate characters on the forum trying to make out like the contest is already over, but it's early days yet. XT may only represent 3% of the nodes at the moment, but it was only 1.5% the other day, so the momentum is building and will most likely continue to do so. This will probably go on for a couple of weeks, if not months, before we can start to get a sense of the real picture as to which blocksize will win support overall. I'm confident it's going to be 8mb, though. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 13, 2015, 04:22:33 PM more than 64% of total hashing power are in favor of 8 MB blocks. i dont know if KnC miner is already included here - so it could be more than 75%. https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/ While I certainly support larger blocks, I'd err on the side of caution with those percentages. The pool operators may well be pushing for 8mb blocks, but there's no guarantee that everyone currently contributing hash power to those pools will go along with it. The numbers will be subject to change as miners switch pools to suit their blocksize preference. We're already seeing some desperate characters on the forum trying to make out like the contest is already over, but it's early days yet. XT may only represent 3% of the nodes at the moment, but it was only 1.5% the other day, so the momentum is building and will most likely continue to do so. This will probably go on for a couple of weeks, if not months, before we can start to get a sense of the real picture as to which blocksize will win support overall. I'm confident it's going to be 8mb, though. mining pools? where the fuck you're coming from? 2012? This is 2015, there aint any mining pool thats worth considerable hashing power. We're talking about industrial miners here. Not mining pools..... I'm sorry if i offend those USB miners.... i know your size is so tiny. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitllionaire on August 13, 2015, 04:29:26 PM Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 13, 2015, 04:34:53 PM Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase Because of group of ppl who's involved with sidechain project happens to be.... core devs. Look it up and see they're acting like children when Gavin want to move forward with the blocksize increase debate. They left the community no choice but to support Gavin. Then they come here to censor anything BitcoinXT related ,.... calling it altcoin. What do they expect? waiting for them like they fucking own the bitcoin network? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: funkenstein on August 13, 2015, 07:57:15 PM Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase Heya :) Off the top of my helmet: 1) They want it to be easier to maintain the full chain / full node, not harder 2) They don't think block size affects use / adoption rates (rather it affects logistics, fees) 3) They want to encourage alt-coin use ;) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Meuh6879 on August 13, 2015, 08:11:14 PM Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic. that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: funkenstein on August 13, 2015, 09:07:15 PM Bitcoin can support a large scale and it must, for all sorts of reasons. And before I state an opinion or refute anything, we see a big problem with your argument. You never say how bigger blocks is needed for large scale!! Look at e.g., USD. Block size = 0 forever and always, yet it seems a lot of people use it anyway. I mean, you could try to make the argument that a larger block size would tend towards quicker adoption or whatever, but .. you haven't tried. Quote Amongst others: 1. Currencies have network effects. A currency that has few users is simply not competitive with currencies that have many. There's no such thing as a settlement currency for high value transactions only, as evidenced by the ever-dropping importance of gold. Quote 2. A decentralised currency that the vast majority can't use doesn't change the amount of centralisation in the world. Most people will still end up using banks, with all the normal problems. You cannot solve a problem by creating a theoretically pure solution that's out of reach of ordinary people: just ask academic cryptographers! It's not clear to me why different size blocks would change Jo Schmoe's use habits. Again, there are no blocks with fiat, and a lot of people still use it. I mean, I can think of some arguments a little bit but not enough to articulate them. If somebody can - I'm all ears. Quote 3. Growth is a part of the social contract. It always has been. The best quote Gregory can find to suggest Satoshi wanted small blocks is a one sentence hypothetical example about what *might* happen if Bitcoin users became "tyrannical" as a result of non-financial transactions being stuffed in the block chain. That position makes sense because his scaling arguments assuming payment-network-sized traffic and throwing DNS systems or whatever into the mix could invalidate those arguments, in the absence of merged mining. But Satoshi did invent merged mining, and so there's no need for Bitcoin users to get "tyrannical": his original arguments still hold. 4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used for infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for that will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and startups that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on the assumption that the market will grow significantly. It's a gamble at best because Bitcoin's success is not guaranteed, but if the block chain cannot grow it's a gamble that is guaranteed to be lost. So why should anyone go through the massive hassle of setting up exchanges, without the lure of large future profits? 5. Bitcoin needs users, lots of them, for its political survival. There are many people out there who would like to see digital cash disappear, or be regulated out of existence. They will argue for that in front of governments and courts .... some already are. And if they're going to lose those arguments, the political and economic damage of getting rid of Bitcoin must be large enough to make people think twice. That means it needs supporters, it needs innovative services, it needs companies, and it needs legal users making legal payments: as many of them as possible. If Bitcoin is a tiny, obscure currency used by drug dealers and a handful of crypto-at-any-cost geeks, the cost of simply banning it outright will seem trivial and the hammer will drop. There won't be a large scale payment network OR a high-value settlement network. And then the world is really screwed, because nobody will get a second chance for a very long time. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009815.html[/center] Most actors in the space (exchanges, payment processors, big pool operators) have stated, in a scattershot way over time, that they support a blocksize increase. Also some well known people like Roger Ver and Andreas Antonopoulos support bigger blocks. I've seen no evidence that block size correlates to user base, nor that "most actors" support larger blocks. Quote -------------------- Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks: “We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less." Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux" Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks: "It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2" BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x" Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.” BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system." http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100 So, it looks like a bunch of banks want bigger blocks. Why? I'm not sure but it makes me not trust it. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 13, 2015, 09:54:57 PM snipp... Or you can just grow up and face reality. Calling all the service that gives Bitcoin fundamental value banks and express your hatred toward them is childish or plain dumb. Notice all the altcoin pump and dump? They're absolutely worthless unless they got listed on an exchange.... woohoo all the idiots then jump on bandwagon until they got dumped bags of dogshit. Maybe your shittycoin need to be on a real exchange, just so i can see your twisted face. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: funkenstein on August 14, 2015, 02:39:10 AM snipp... Or you can just grow up and face reality. Calling all the service that gives Bitcoin fundamental value banks and express your hatred toward them is childish or plain dumb. Notice all the altcoin pump and dump? They're absolutely worthless unless they got listed on an exchange.... woohoo all the idiots then jump on bandwagon until they got dumped bags of dogshit. Maybe your shittycoin need to be on a real exchange, just so i can see your twisted face. What reality do you think I am not facing by asking for an argument to be clearly stated? And what makes you think I don't like exchanges? I'm no hater.. I have used two of the services listed there, sure I won't call them banks if that makes you think hatred, to me it doesn't but I guess I can see where that comes from. Anyway, sorry if I confused you, my point is that saying "We need everyone to accept bigger blocks because these companies said so" is not good enough for me. Also saying "we need bigger blocks because more bitcoin users is good" is not good enough for me, as I don't see the relation. You will also note I am not saying "We need smaller blocks" or "Bigger blocks over my dead body" or even "listen to me I know just what we need". Instead I'm saying, make a coherent argument please. Might be asking a lot around here I know but I have high expectations for all y'all. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: lottery248 on August 14, 2015, 03:55:12 AM even though larger blocks would give faster confirmation, it would encourage transaction flooding! giving increase limit of blockchain would not ever encourage the sustainability, if someone had a spare time to do some of the test like stress test, most of the full node users would be in trouble on synchronising them. IIRC this would lead to the complaints from most of the full node users with the problem of the stress test, transaction flooding and/or so on.
the more full node users, meaning the higher security it would be; of course vice versa, the more independent miners in the network, the more security that would be. that's why i could not legitimately support for you, we should split some of the miners into a smaller pool, reason is simple: prevent people from centralising the power easily. if we decided to increase the block size limit, especially no limit one, bitcoin would not be a sustainable currency, due to the hardware usage, and electric problem; even though if the merchants could afford those blockchains, it doesn't help the network, simply, less full node users, higher ability of 51% attacks based on controlling full node users and miners. for the mining matter, even more wastage of electricity would be, unless we had a environmental friendly power generator for the miners, otherwise, most of the miners would be ended up with so-called failure. all in all, if the bitcoin XT occurred in bitcoin XT, bitcoin would not be able to sustain to at least 2140. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 14, 2015, 04:12:58 AM if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: fryarminer on August 14, 2015, 02:07:54 PM First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks? Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees? Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour? People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BillyBobZorton on August 14, 2015, 02:13:03 PM First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks? Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees? Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour? People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait. Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: fryarminer on August 14, 2015, 02:19:01 PM First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks? Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees? Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour? People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait. Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck. Ok maybe I'm wrong. But I was of the understanding that miners have always had the choice to not include transactions in blocks. This incidentally keeps the freedom of bitcoin free. Nobody is putting restrictions one way or another. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 14, 2015, 02:45:12 PM if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT. that could be true. but only for people who dont see the things from a neutral perspective. Mike was wrong back then but here (bigger blocks) he is right. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 14, 2015, 02:45:24 PM First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks? Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees? Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour? People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait. Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck. Ok maybe I'm wrong. But I was of the understanding that miners have always had the choice to not include transactions in blocks. This incidentally keeps the freedom of bitcoin free. Nobody is putting restrictions one way or another. You're not wrong. And dont listen to the idiot. Miners have their choice of include txs or not. It has always been that way. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 14, 2015, 02:48:33 PM if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT. that could be true. but only for people who dont see the things from a neutral perspective. Mike was wrong back then but here (bigger blocks) he is right. I agree . I dont support white listing at all. And never will. However i think they like to bring that up so they can justify their censorship. When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: medUSA on August 14, 2015, 07:48:56 PM When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs. I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 14, 2015, 08:44:30 PM When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs. I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes. They want to promote Blockstream. And some of the core devs are actually also Blockstream devs. So they behave like a bunch of children hold the community hostage. Hey if the economic majority wants to support bigger blocks, then this "fork" is inevitable. Censoring this would only make them look worse. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 15, 2015, 02:21:43 AM When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs. I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes. I think we are getting to the heart of the matter here. Hearn (the wrong guy) is right and the usual right guys are wrong. It really would be nice to see this led by the core devs. Why Gavin chose to associate with Hearn, I have no idea, given the context. It would be better if he had done it alone, at least for me. Can't someone else besides Hearn make a fork that we can get behind? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: n2004al on August 15, 2015, 03:09:27 AM I see that most of the important actors of cryptocurrency not only accept but push over the increase of blocks. I see and i read to much about the importance of such increment. But i don't understand why all those actors don't be in one mind about how, why and when this is it will be possible to be a reality. For this i think it is important to discuss. Why don't increase? Which are the factors which impedes such increase and what to do to eliminate those? Can anyone answer to this simple question? Can anyone open a thread to discuss about this?
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 15, 2015, 05:00:07 AM Gavin on reddit:
As people have said in the comments, rolling out a change to the maximum block size takes months. We're already hitting the limit sometimes when miners get unlucky and don't find many blocks; that will just get increasingly worse, and fees will rise. That's not a disaster-- Bitcoin will survive. But it means it is less expensive for an attacker to drive up fees unpredictably (wait until the memory pool is backed up because miners have been unlucky, then send a few megabytes of higher-than-average-fee transactions). It means fees are higher for users than they should be, but miners will get less overall revenue from fees (because there are fewer transactions than there should be), so the network will be a little less secure. In economic terms, artificially limiting the block size results in deadweight losses for both miners and users. It means lower-value transactions are not economical to do on the blockchain, so they're driven to more centralized off-chain solutions (like trusted wallets or, eventually, Lightning hubs). All of the above make me think that scaling up by increasing the maximum block size is urgent, and why it has been at the top of my priority list since January. To be clear: I think the Lightning network is a great idea, and I fully support the changes to Bitcoin needed to support it. It is not either/or, we should do "all of the above." https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gz9ut/do_the_stress_tests_show_that_gavin_was_wrong/ Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: timothythomas on August 15, 2015, 06:55:25 AM i will support the size increase i want to see bitcoin grow and not die coz of suffocation
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: lottery248 on August 15, 2015, 07:10:55 AM what about if someone did a stress test?
what about if the bitcoin popularity wasn't gradually increasing? what about the transaction flooding? i knew exactly what bitcoin XT used to, if people gave up from using the full node wallet, less legitimacy of security, mining could only help verifying transactions, if someone controlled 51% of the full node wallet, bitcoin would be ended up with centralisation. i could support up to 16 mb blocks, it would be explicitly sufficient unless we had millions of users, plus storage wastes energy. we need a sustainable and decentralised currency, unless you have evidence to support "how bitcoin XT could sustain bitcoin and its protocol", otherwise, please consider if you were kidnapped by the XT developers. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 11:40:27 AM Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end. The spam attacks will stop once we reach a acceptable level of fee's. Currently it's possible to make transactions without paying any fees. That is not good for Bitcoin as it makes it easy to bloat the blockchain. You sound like you know that this is the case. I fear the spam attacks are done for that really. What a mess. We wanted to create a currency that is not controlled and now some greedy bast... can force the transaction fee higher. I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about. Please explain how the block size will scale with a hard fork increasing the block size to 8MB? Bitcoin without a block size limit could handle everything. Only because this limit was implemented we became problems. We easily could fight the "bloating" by implementing output related fees. So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? What are you speaking about? Where did i wrote something like that? You were the one who claimed we would need an additional network so that bitcoin could become a high fee transaction system. I would not be surprised if you actually would be one of these devs with goal conflict. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 11:46:55 AM Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end. The spam attacks will stop once we reach a acceptable level of fee's. Currently it's possible to make transactions without paying any fees. That is not good for Bitcoin as it makes it easy to bloat the blockchain. I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about. Please explain how the block size will scale with a hard fork increasing the block size to 8MB? So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? The idea is incremental of 8mb in synchrony with moore's law. This way we should be able to scale up as far as we need to. Though i wonder why having a bottle neck at all. I mean when spammers want to spam then they will do so anyway. They could either spam 1MB blocks or 8MB ones. But 8MB ones would be more expensive so less rewarding. So why not simply removing the blocklimit completely? I mean there is no reason to spam then anymore. The minimum fee would be sufficient. And as long as the blocks aren't filled completely all advertising spam will go through anyway. I think the limit can be dropped. That's something we learned from the spamming. https://i.imgur.com/QoTEOO2.gif The fees must stay low tho.. im not saying they shouldn't be a bit higher if needed, but definitely they must feel LOW or else it will be a mass failure. Exactly. Bitcoin with a high fee reward with nowadays amount of transactions would mean bitcoin is dead. I can't believe how shortsighted some people are only because they run their own agenda. Don't they realize that their business model is based on bitcoin completely too? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 11:54:25 AM I trust the original, unhindered Bitcoin implementation to scale far better than an artificially crippled implementation with a new bit bolted on top. The original? Aren't we running the original now? He means the original without the artificial 1MB block size limit. Saying you support a 1MB limit and the lightning network is like saying you want to limit the amount of material you can pass in a bowel movement and fit a colostomy bag to deal with the rest because that's somehow better. Get rid of the artificial bottleneck and let nature take its course. That's a bad analogy. We need to have limits otherwise the block chain would grow so massive that most people would not be able to run full nodes. And what's the point of risking that when we can have third party solutions? Why using privately run third party solutions when we have the original. Only because some greedy persons want to break bitcoin for their own good doesn't mean that all bitcoiners will support them. And about massive block chain grow do you speak? You speak like the blocks are full constantly. They aren't. And spamming only works because the fees are increasing then. So how do you get the idea that there would be an uncontrolled grow without a block size limit? Where should that come from suddenly? It does not solve anything? That is a understatement. 8 MB blocks should help us gain the needed time. Who knows exactly when something like the lightning network or sidechains are going to be fully functional. The developers aren't really saying much about a timeline. Bigger blocks will be needed in the future even with other solutions. Why should we wait when it is much easier to do the fork now? The fork is not dangerous at all if we use the proper consensus rules. What needed time? I haven't noticed that we have any urgent issues with full blocks? If there are full blocks the market will adapt and either pay higher fees or develop alternatives like lightning network. And so what if 90% thinks we should have bigger blocks? I still don't think it's the best possible option. That's like saying just because the majority of the people voted for Obama makes him the best possible president. Maybe the market don't want to be forced using lightning networks? ::) And this adaption... it has led to enough confusion already. Didn't you read all the threads about newbies and even established members that got their transaction stuck because of spamming suddenly started? That surely will help bitcoin adoption. ::) About the options... that's mostly right. We often enough only have the choice to use the less worst option. Because the best option, that you think it is, doesn't have the needed support yet. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 11:58:18 AM Are the core devs even doing anything about this? Or is Gavin the only one being pro active? Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix? Core developers are divided in two parties. One part will increase blocks and the other part won't. The first part will develop bitcoin-xt, in case bitcoin-qt doesn't get updated, the second part of developers want to push the lighning network. They will earn money when bitcoin is crippled. Simple as that. ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 15, 2015, 12:22:10 PM Are the core devs even doing anything about this? Or is Gavin the only one being pro active? Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix? FUD.As I've stated this multiple times: supporting bigger blocks does not necessarily mean that you support XT. I for one, support bigger blocks but do not support XT nor Mike Hearn at all and neither should you. BIP 100: Quote Protocol changes proposed: Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit. Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015. Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today). Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 15, 2015, 02:04:34 PM Bitcoin without a block size limit could handle everything. Only because this limit was implemented we became problems. We easily could fight the "bloating" by implementing output related fees. According to the chart there is still a limit when block size reaches 8GB, so it still doesn't scale... So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? What are you speaking about? Where did i wrote something like that? You were the one who claimed we would need an additional network so that bitcoin could become a high fee transaction system. I would not be surprised if you actually would be one of these devs with goal conflict. I believe that if there is demand for more transactions the market will find a way to deal with it. Either by a increase of fees or something like the lightning network. I never said "we need the lightning network". You said this: So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) I interpret that as you don't think Bitcoin is working properly now? Why using privately run third party solutions when we have the original. Only because some greedy persons want to break bitcoin for their own good doesn't mean that all bitcoiners will support them. And about massive block chain grow do you speak? You speak like the blocks are full constantly. They aren't. And spamming only works because the fees are increasing then. So how do you get the idea that there would be an uncontrolled grow without a block size limit? Where should that come from suddenly? I never claimed that the blocks will be full constantly, but obviously the block chain will increase in size since people will be able to make transactions without fees. Maybe the market don't want to be forced using lightning networks? ::) And this adaption... it has led to enough confusion already. Didn't you read all the threads about newbies and even established members that got their transaction stuck because of spamming suddenly started? That surely will help bitcoin adoption. ::) About the options... that's mostly right. We often enough only have the choice to use the less worst option. Because the best option, that you think it is, doesn't have the needed support yet. If you don't like the lightning network feel free to deveolpe a better alternative. The market won't force you to use lightning network. And people complaining about transactions getting stuck don't know how bitcoin works - they are under the impression that they should be able to use bitcoin without any fees. Fortunately it seems like they have adapted and increased their fees since I don't see any people complaining now. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 15, 2015, 05:52:16 PM Why is Bitcoin forking?
Satoshi’s plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. It’s the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community. That’s the vision I signed up for. That’s the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. That’s the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for. ... A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (‘client only mode’). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasn’t needed — I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshi’s reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 In Satoshis words i trust :) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 16, 2015, 11:53:50 AM Total known mining power supporting big blocks: 68.86%
8MB: F2Pool (19.77%): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese) AntPool (16.68%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/1c7ce8b32ffa6f3ceb6a343828bc6d9fbf10a06bb884ecee042d6740716d0bda BTCChina (11.86%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/498e4a4225a9cd147ec5091fbcf2a3ca2a9a0f8e18566af50e37c1802360b82b BW pool (7.14%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/0fe25d362c3567ec7d9b485aa8d77c10c27bc464c610eab8639fc3876518cd4a KNCMiner (4.63%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4022ca10810c7ce69a17bc612a94c1114cabd7fa8141106c12b0c402ecd68076 Slush (4.63%): https://twitter.com/AlenaSatoshi/status/631369094718164992 21 Inc (4.15%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/fa142a8cac0a292d8319b8f8cd048dcb6c577dafcdd0a96842eedfeb9ab07927 Huobi (unknown): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese) https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/ Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Eastfist on August 16, 2015, 11:56:53 AM Why is Bitcoin forking? Satoshi’s plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. It’s the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community. That’s the vision I signed up for. That’s the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. That’s the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for. ... A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (‘client only mode’). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasn’t needed — I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshi’s reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 In Satoshis words i trust :) Not a cult? Gotta be more responsible for your own decision making in life. May some bad shit happen, don't blame Satoshi. This isn't a game. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 16, 2015, 12:20:08 PM Total known mining power supporting big blocks: 68.86% Supporting bigger blocks =/= supporting Bitcoin XT. However, it looks like only a handful of people around here realize this. I can't stress it enough though. Obviously pools from China are going to like that upgrade once other miners start getting (more) orphans, so this isn't really a surprise.8MB: F2Pool (19.77%): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese) AntPool (16.68%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/1c7ce8b32ffa6f3ceb6a343828bc6d9fbf10a06bb884ecee042d6740716d0bda BTCChina (11.86%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/498e4a4225a9cd147ec5091fbcf2a3ca2a9a0f8e18566af50e37c1802360b82b BW pool (7.14%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/0fe25d362c3567ec7d9b485aa8d77c10c27bc464c610eab8639fc3876518cd4a KNCMiner (4.63%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4022ca10810c7ce69a17bc612a94c1114cabd7fa8141106c12b0c402ecd68076 Slush (4.63%): https://twitter.com/AlenaSatoshi/status/631369094718164992 21 Inc (4.15%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/fa142a8cac0a292d8319b8f8cd048dcb6c577dafcdd0a96842eedfeb9ab07927 Huobi (unknown): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese) https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/ As long as Hearn doesn't call the shots, I'm fine. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 16, 2015, 02:55:41 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).
i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 16, 2015, 03:48:17 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 16, 2015, 03:57:25 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). Wrong:i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. 1) We are not running out of time as the average block size is not near 1 MB. 2) Read BIP 100 and 102. Core is implementing bigger blocks as well and possibly even sooner than XT. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 16, 2015, 03:59:40 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"? we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software. when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release. i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 16, 2015, 07:59:26 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"? we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software. when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release. i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes. So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month? Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: harrymmmm on August 17, 2015, 06:02:41 AM When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs. I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes. That's fair enough, and describes my position exactly as well. It would only need core devs to throw us a bone to stop all this nonsense, but well ... egos. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 17, 2015, 06:46:23 AM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"? we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software. when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release. i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes. So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month? Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size Very rare that i see a post that suit its poster's username. Bravo. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 17, 2015, 03:39:04 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"? we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software. when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release. i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes. So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month? Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size The reason why the big-blockians are calling for an increase in early 2016 is that at the current pace, the network will get saturated in mid-2016, and "traffic jams" will become a recurrent "feature". They claim (and I fully agree) that such state will be disastrous for bitcoin. Thus, that proposal is the same thing as denying the increase: it will result in saturation and traffic jams by mid-2016. The Blockstream devs openly want that to happen because they believe that a "fee market" is necessary and will somehow make bitcoin better, and that the traffic must be prevented from growing. Delaying the increase until 2017 will lead to that. https://d2jmvrsizmvf4x.cloudfront.net/iH4HvNPyTuaVAJlw2fuk_Exponential-Growth-Curve-sm.gif Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 17, 2015, 08:25:31 PM The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development. look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install. How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully? If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using. And you think that will solve somehow by letting the blocks stay at 1MB? What kind of currency would you have when only some transactions can go through? You would solve nothing but destroying what you want to keep. But yes... the downloading of blocks is way too slow. I don't know why that is. I mean every filesharing p2p software is faster most of the time. Maybe it needs only having more nodes connected to? ... A quick check let me read that the versions from 0.10 download the blockchain sequencial. Such allowing faster downloads. Guess they work on speeding up things. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 17, 2015, 08:35:55 PM The 1mb cap wasn't introduced because of concerns over the bandwidth requirements for nodes, it was intended to be an anti-spam measure, but apparently it failed miserably in that goal. The blockchain didn't "grow huge" before the cap was put in place. Also, it's not a "solution" at all if it doesn't solve the problem of limiting the amount of fees the miners can collect. Nodes won't be any use at all without sufficiently incentivised miners to secure the network. In order to generate more fees for miners, it will be necessary to accommodate more transactions over time. Users want to get their transactions on a blockchain. If Bitcoin isn't the simplest and most convenient way to do that because you're funneling transactions into your lightning colostomy bag network, another coin will come along that hasn't been artificially crippled and doesn't rely on a third party bolted on top. If that coin turns out to be a more attractive proposition for users, what's their reason to continue using Bitcoin? If users are then transacting on another network, why are miners going to stick around to secure this one? Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee. And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue. Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes. If it doesn't, something else will. Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money. *lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system. And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees? I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners. Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners. ::) I do not agree with either parts of your post. Filling up a block costs money, and I doubt that someone would be able to make huge blocks without that costing them a lot. Even if this was the case, a simple higher cap can be implemented to prevent this from happening. There is no risking with a proper hard fork. Why risk using third party solutions; i.e. meaning we stop relying on the protocol itself? So you are advocating a even higher block size if the spammers fill up the 8MB blocks? And you await the spammers to fill a considerable amount of 8MB blocks? What about no block limit at all? Why spamming then? Minimum fee would ensure that it is costly and it would be useless. So everyone who wants to do it would be free to do... only it would not make sense. You have not? What about those recent spam attacks that happened? A lot of people were complaining about their transactions not going through because the blocks were full. The market did not adapt that time, nor do I understand why people think that higher fees are going to be beneficial to Bitcoin. The market did not adapt? Are you kidding? The only people that complained were people that used no fees or very low fees. Those transactions should not be on the blockchain to begin with. They are SPAM. Which shows that the current anti SPAM system works. *lol* You speak like you never used fiat. Yes, you can use fiat without fees. And yes, bitcoin started to replace a good chunk of it. Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 17, 2015, 08:43:16 PM People can't agree because almost everyone around here is closed minded. At first I was willing to accept Gavins proposal, however that did not turn out to be the best choice of action and thus I began changing my stance towards this matter. I'm willing to compensate to a 2 MB increase as Jeff proposed and I openly welcome other solutions (e.g. sidechains, lightning network). However, people on the other side of the argument do not seem to want to compensate to anything. It's their way or no way at all. You can't say that people on the other side are not able to negotiated with. If you think a 2MB block is a solution of some kind then this might sound to others like nonsense. And you don't need to take compromises when you think the compromise is bad. You woud fight for what you want instead. I think that is a valid thing to do. Not accepting things that are unacceptable. That has nothing to do with being a blockhead. Of course each party can throw this word to the other party but it won't solve anything. At the end the network decides. And hopefully the networks majority is filled from those that want to have bitcoin a longterm project. Not making it an expensive thing on the same level like things we already had before only to promote some altcoins... ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 17, 2015, 10:28:55 PM Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money. *lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that? What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT? Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin. And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees? I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners. Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners. ::) Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network. There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network. *lol* You speak like you never used fiat. Yes, you can use fiat without fees. And yes, bitcoin started to replace a good chunk of it. Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly. Fiat without fees? Ever heard of inflation? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 17, 2015, 11:12:07 PM Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money. *lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that? What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT? Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin. And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees? I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners. Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners. ::) Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network. There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network. Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: jones techbit on August 18, 2015, 12:14:02 AM Satoshi designed an original and interesting system, but it would be outrageous to claim that he has perfect vision into how the system might scale in the future.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 18, 2015, 12:26:16 AM This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus itself that is unprecedented in history. How we deal with reaching consensus for controversial and contested changes will set precedent and is as important as the block size debate itself. This is a trial that we must go through in order to grow and survive as a truly decentralized entity.
To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses. However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners. We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 (https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on August 18, 2015, 10:38:41 AM This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus itself that is unprecedented in history. How we deal with reaching consensus for controversial and contested changes will set precedent and is as important as the block size debate itself. This is a trial that we must go through in order to grow and survive as a truly decentralized entity. To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses. However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners. We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 (https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1) That's a relief. Was starting to think I was the only one who saw it that way and was almost beginning to question if there were any sane people left here on the forum. I couldn't agree more. There are still far too many people here that, for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, mistakenly believe Bitcoin should behave more like a closed-source project, where a single team of developers make all the decisions and the userbase has no freedom to choose. And worse still, some people think a fork proposal is an attack on the system. They've got it completely backwards. Not being able to fork would be an attack on the system. Thank you for restoring my faith that there are still some people left who understand this correctly. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 18, 2015, 03:10:36 PM Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 18, 2015, 03:44:44 PM Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain. There is no need to bloat the chain. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 18, 2015, 04:57:02 PM Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain. There is no need to bloat the chain. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 18, 2015, 04:59:56 PM Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain. There is no need to bloat the chain. Go use paypal if you dont know the difference. I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: forevernoob on August 18, 2015, 06:55:30 PM Since off chain transactions are more centralized then using the bitcoin blockchain directly, like Coinbase for example. It would be better if everyone could take advantage from the transparency and security that the Bitcoin blockchain provides instead of being “forced” to use third parties. No one is being forced to use alternative parties. You can use the blockchain but if blocks are full it will come with a fee. I'm perfectly fine with that because that's how the system is supposed to work. Haven't you people heard of the expression "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? We can't have "free" transactions. That doesn't work. There would be no incentive to mine and secure the blockchain. Go use paypal if you dont know the difference. I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence. Don't you have any better argument than that? I'm not shocked, pal. Go use PayPal because I have heard they don't have any fees. ;) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 19, 2015, 01:01:23 AM Since off chain transactions are more centralized then using the bitcoin blockchain directly, like Coinbase for example. It would be better if everyone could take advantage from the transparency and security that the Bitcoin blockchain provides instead of being “forced” to use third parties. No one is being forced to use alternative parties. You can use the blockchain but if blocks are full it will come with a fee. I'm perfectly fine with that because that's how the system is supposed to work. Haven't you people heard of the expression "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? We can't have "free" transactions. That doesn't work. There would be no incentive to mine and secure the blockchain. Go use paypal if you dont know the difference. I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence. Don't you have any better argument than that? I'm not shocked, pal. Go use PayPal because I have heard they don't have any fees. ;) I do not actually think that Bitcoin will get mass adoption if this limit is put in place. Since one of the advantages of Bitcoin is that we do not need third parties, “forcing” people to use third parties for Bitcoin will take away some of its advantage. I do realize that eventually most transactions will have to be performed off chain, however I think that it is more important to increase adoption first and keep the network as inclusive and cheap as possible from the users perspective, increased adoption would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain. I do agree with you however that insulting a persons intelligence is not a good argument lol. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: medUSA on August 19, 2015, 09:37:17 AM As I've stated this multiple times: supporting bigger blocks does not necessarily mean that you support XT. I for one, support bigger blocks but do not support XT nor Mike Hearn at all and neither should you. BIP 100: Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit. Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB. <snip> I am aware of BIP102. It's the least radical proposal. I thought it would unite various factions and bitcoin could then move forward. I am still waiting for signs that Core is implementing BIP102. I think communications among the devs has broken down and there is too much hostility to come to any middle ground. Average users like us have no sway over the Core devs' direction, XT gives us a chance to voice out. :-\ Those not sure what BIP100/102 proposes, here is a summary: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153957.0 So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month? Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size The chart show day averages. Hitting the limit one or twice a day doesn't pull the day average up. When the chart shows a peak, it means blocks are hitting the limit very frequently in a day. Raising the limit is a preemptive move, planning ahead before it gets really bad. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Eodguy149 on August 19, 2015, 10:42:08 AM I don't think anyone actually believes that blocks should stay 1mb forever, most devs just disagree on the right way to accomplish the block size increase. A hard fork is not a trivial thing, especially now that the Bitcoin market cap is over $3 billion, and most want a solution that will last the life of Bitcoin so that a hard fork never has to happen again. It's a difficult situation with valid arguments on both sides.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 19, 2015, 02:26:29 PM I would actually prefer a compromise over XT. But right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so i choose XT. I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. I also think that XT should be the last hard fork as well.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: AtheistAKASaneBrain on August 19, 2015, 02:45:23 PM In a perfect world we could have infinitesimally small transactions being transacted in-chain but I dont think this is viable long term, so LN may be a solid solution for this. maybe in the future we can have everything on the chain but not anytime soon.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 19, 2015, 03:00:49 PM I would actually prefer a compromise over XT. But right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so i choose XT. I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. I also think that XT should be the last hard fork as well. that is the problem. i would stay with Core too but not with artificial 1 MB blocks :-\ first block mined with XT https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000174419fa2ba5003e123dbd97c6982aff1863f016b04789d 12.5 % XT Nodes http://up.picr.de/22865187od.jpg Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: hikedoon on August 19, 2015, 04:04:37 PM Why is Bitcoin forking? Satoshi’s plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. It’s the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community. That’s the vision I signed up for. That’s the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. That’s the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for. ... A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (‘client only mode’). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasn’t needed — I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshi’s reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 In Satoshis words i trust :) Thank's LiteCoinGuy, that link was worth reading. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: peligro on August 20, 2015, 11:47:03 AM What i want to see if Theymos will follow his words and ..... stop supporting all the services above on his site "www.bitcoin.org".... LOL lets see if he can shoot himself in the foot. I don't think theymos is against the raising of max block size limit. He only gave out an order that bitcoin xt is an altcoin once it forked. I doubt that he believes that the majority of users will go with bitcoin xt, that's simply not imagineable. So far i understood it all the time so that theymos supports a bigger block size. Or am i wrong? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Kazimir on August 20, 2015, 11:50:36 AM Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: AtheistAKASaneBrain on August 20, 2015, 11:53:21 AM Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating. The guys not only are puttin dodgy code that will kill privacy (the Tor blacklist is just a work of evil) the thing is, 75% is shit nothing when it comes to a hard fork, it should have been 90% minimum. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: peligro on August 20, 2015, 11:54:51 AM Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase Heya :) Off the top of my helmet: 1) They want it to be easier to maintain the full chain / full node, not harder 2) They don't think block size affects use / adoption rates (rather it affects logistics, fees) 3) They want to encourage alt-coin use ;) Point 3... what is a lightning network other than an altcoin? ::) It might be a sidechain but still it is not bitcoin. Point 1... If you think it is easier to handle only a couple of big transactions then you are right. With a block size limit of 1 we would turn bitcoin into a high value transportation system with fees compareable to paypal. And we would get far away from what satoshi wanted, providing an alternative to the current fiat system. That would only work with small transactions possible and that means the transaction can't be worth less than it's fee. Point 2 is nonsense. I don't think they don't think so. They know it will be so. They only think that instead users will use their sidechain then. Bringing them personal profits. This developer team is so corrupt at the moment. It's no fun watching at. ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: peligro on August 20, 2015, 11:58:59 AM Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic. that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend. I don't understand the argument that no block size limit would fill the blockchain with spam. I mean the blocks up till the spam attack, which was costly for the one doing it, were not filled up nearly. So when we would drop the block size limit, why suddenly should there be a lot of spam bringing the blocks to 20 MB? When it didn't happen till now then there is no reason to assume that it will happen then. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: funkenstein on August 20, 2015, 03:05:27 PM Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic. that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend. I don't understand the argument that no block size limit would fill the blockchain with spam. I mean the blocks up till the spam attack, which was costly for the one doing it, were not filled up nearly. So when we would drop the block size limit, why suddenly should there be a lot of spam bringing the blocks to 20 MB? When it didn't happen till now then there is no reason to assume that it will happen then. The argument is that with bigger block size, the space is less valuable, so the required fee will be lower, so -- easier to send microTX/dust/spam. If you make it easier and cheaper, then more people come to fill the space, and in the end you are faced with the same problem again - except this time it is now unfeasible to even run a node on reasonable hardware/pipe. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 03:41:49 PM Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating. Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. So if we the people want bigger blocks it must be done through a hard fork, whether that is XT or another proposal. The ability to hard fork exists so that such disagreements can be resolved and so that we have the ability to disrupt the centralization of power that can come to exist within a development team.Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on August 20, 2015, 03:49:40 PM Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.-snip- Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: WestHarrison on August 20, 2015, 03:55:10 PM I'd be very happy to be able to wire money anywhere in the world, completely free from central control, for only $20. Equally I'll happily accept more centralized methods to transfer money when I'm just buying a chocolate bar. That discussion many years ago is very educational. I agree that for services to be built on top of the layer 0 fees would need to be bigger and that tinkering with Bitcoin as is always leads to certain unknowns, but when I read this 20 dollar figure per transaction fee I can't help but feel uncomfortable. Who would even use Bitcoin at this cost? If only a few fringe cases of people would use btc by then, then who would actually buy bitcoin and at what cost? Would btc come crashing down to a couple of bucks? If that's the case then the 20 dollars would be an important fraction of the actual BTC bought to transact across the world. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: funkenstein on August 20, 2015, 04:39:44 PM Also relevant:
http://coin-vote.com/poll/55d5fbe74df0a76e09bafeea Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 20, 2015, 04:51:13 PM Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 06:09:51 PM Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.-snip- I would like to ask you personally, how long would you wait for the block size increase, before you lose faith in the Core development team? Since if we wait longer then it takes for the blocks to fill up, blockstream will get its way and we will be forced to use third parties instead of being able to use Bitcoin directly. If that did happen however I would simply start using a different cryptocurrency. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: hodedowe on August 20, 2015, 06:54:43 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin". http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 20, 2015, 07:01:06 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Oh did you actually? And did you check the source of material that you read? Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: croTek4 on August 20, 2015, 07:03:16 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( .002 at current maket price is about $0.46 we're not using bitcoin to pay 46 cents per transaction!! Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: sintax on August 20, 2015, 07:14:00 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Oh did you actually? And did you check the source of material that you read? Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board! Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: kokojie on August 20, 2015, 07:20:23 PM Faster blocks > bigger blocks
Faster confirmation is what the user wants Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 08:16:57 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion: I am not convinced by your arguments, I have already addressed what you have said here. Could you please try and rebuttal the arguments I have already presented in this thread.
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Edited to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin". http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: TheAnalogKid on August 20, 2015, 08:36:38 PM You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. Well now, that's extremely ignorant and a "first world" way of thinking. For many people in other countries of the world, especially where Bitcoin has gained a respectable foothold, $0.50 USD represents quite a significant amount of money, possibly even a full day's pay. There's no possible way you can expect someone to pay that much just to get a transaction to be accepted in the queue.In order to gain adoption and grow to where most people think Bitcoin should be, it needs to adapt to be able to provide reasonable transaction times for the majority of transactions, for a reasonable fee. That reasonable fee is not $0.50 for the majority of people, and thus won't work too well. You are effectively telling all those folks that you don't give a shit about them, and you're pretty much advocating the same type of situation you're railing against with your arguments against XT. Just because you think it's a trivial matter and can afford it, everyone else should just "suck it up" because that's the best way to do it. BTW - in all your supposed "research", did you happen to come across the fact that the original blocksize limit was supposed to be 33MB? Satoshi himself realized that 1MB was not sustainable for long term growth. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Kazimir on August 20, 2015, 09:14:02 PM Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating. Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 09:15:29 PM You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. Well now, that's extremely ignorant and a "first world" way of thinking. For many people in other countries of the world, especially where Bitcoin has gained a respectable foothold, $0.50 USD represents quite a significant amount of money, possibly even a full day's pay. There's no possible way you can expect someone to pay that much just to get a transaction to be accepted in the queue.In order to gain adoption and grow to where most people think Bitcoin should be, it needs to adapt to be able to provide reasonable transaction times for the majority of transactions, for a reasonable fee. That reasonable fee is not $0.50 for the majority of people, and thus won't work too well. You are effectively telling all those folks that you don't give a shit about them, and you're pretty much advocating the same type of situation you're railing against with your arguments against XT. Just because you think it's a trivial matter and can afford it, everyone else should just "suck it up" because that's the best way to do it. BTW - in all your supposed "research", did you happen to come across the fact that the original blocksize limit was supposed to be 33MB? Satoshi himself realized that 1MB was not sustainable for long term growth. "The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets. But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "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 design supports letting users just be users." This has all been presented in the article by Mike Hearn which everyone should read, since it presents the arguments concisely of why we should fork. A must read for anyone wanting to research this subject and be well informed: https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 (https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: dasource on August 20, 2015, 09:16:58 PM Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 09:22:15 PM Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating. Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Slark on August 20, 2015, 09:25:10 PM Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.-snip- But Core developers are fighting about size, properties etc. of new block so I doubt that will happen soon. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 09:36:16 PM Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.-snip- Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 20, 2015, 10:43:23 PM Quote People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/ and better this Charlie Lee: Nuclear option of forking the codebase should only be used as a last resort. It's dangerous & irresponsible. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 11:34:33 PM Quote People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/ and better this Charlie Lee: Nuclear option of forking the codebase should only be used as a last resort. It's dangerous & irresponsible. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 20, 2015, 11:36:17 PM core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm. The evolution never need a shock to be successful.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: omahapoker on August 21, 2015, 01:06:53 PM even though larger blocks would give faster confirmation, it would encourage transaction flooding! giving increase limit of blockchain would not ever encourage the sustainability, if someone had a spare time to do some of the test like stress test, most of the full node users would be in trouble on synchronising them. IIRC this would lead to the complaints from most of the full node users with the problem of the stress test, transaction flooding and/or so on. the more full node users, meaning the higher security it would be; of course vice versa, the more independent miners in the network, the more security that would be. that's why i could not legitimately support for you, we should split some of the miners into a smaller pool, reason is simple: prevent people from centralising the power easily. if we decided to increase the block size limit, especially no limit one, bitcoin would not be a sustainable currency, due to the hardware usage, and electric problem; even though if the merchants could afford those blockchains, it doesn't help the network, simply, less full node users, higher ability of 51% attacks based on controlling full node users and miners. for the mining matter, even more wastage of electricity would be, unless we had a environmental friendly power generator for the miners, otherwise, most of the miners would be ended up with so-called failure. all in all, if the bitcoin XT occurred in bitcoin XT, bitcoin would not be able to sustain to at least 2140. How do you get the idea that with uncapped blocksize we would get a huge increase in blocksize because of transaction flooding? I mean didn'nt you notice that we had this 1MB limit for years and there did NOT happen anything like that even though the blocks were not even nearly full. I think that argument already was disproven by reality. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: omahapoker on August 21, 2015, 01:11:04 PM if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT. Exactly. I hate to see that the developers behave either immature (Gavin), have ideas that will hurt bitcoin (Hearn) or even want to hurt bitcoin directly with high fees so that their sidechain coin will bring them more profits. It's like the choice between pest and cholera. Though i think the only way now is to support bitcoin xt but drop support as soon as strange ideas from hearn or gavin come up. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 01:22:34 PM i like to see you all when the bitcoin will lost it trust from the people and every coin price will drop below 1 dollar. You must read all of you the basic economic lessons.
Spent one or two hours to read book what means trust and after take part in this bitcoinxt nonsense Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BNO on August 21, 2015, 02:22:54 PM One should really support XT because:
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 02:24:22 PM the new developers as you say is core developers. Gavin and hearn choose to fork and destroy bitcoin with their action. is very simple
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: pedrog on August 21, 2015, 02:27:23 PM One should really support XT because:
Bitcoin Core is going to be rebranded Blockstream Core. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 02:29:58 PM BitcoinXT try for political reform of bitcoin to be part of the bank financial system. This is not a simple matter of block increase but this is the future of bitcoin. If you that future to the hand of two developers and if you want bitcoin to have a leader then go to create an altcoin. Is no needing to destroy bitcoin!
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BNO on August 21, 2015, 02:34:43 PM Quote the new developers as you say is core developers. Gavin and hearn choose to fork and destroy bitcoin with their action. is very simple the fear mongering nonsense i just talked about. A sensible, really minor adjustment, that only comes into play if 75% approve is now destroying bitcoin.. Think about it: When in your democracy have been 75% for something?? This limit is very high. I hope they succeed. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: allthingsluxury on August 21, 2015, 02:34:49 PM This truly is the debate of our time. I have to say that both sides make valid arguments, in the end the majority is going to win out and the other will slowly fade away. As a business, I will be forced into what the majority decides, as that is what the processors will use.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 02:38:21 PM Quote the new developers as you say is core developers. Gavin and hearn choose to fork and destroy bitcoin with their action. is very simple the fear mongering nonsense i just talked about. A sensible, really minor adjustment, that only comes into play if 75% approve is now destroying bitcoin.. Think about it: When in your democracy have been 75% been for something?? This limit is very high. I hope they succeed. give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this?? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 21, 2015, 02:52:38 PM core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm. source? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 02:56:04 PM https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/
Quote In recent months the Bitcoin development community has faced difficult discussions of how to safely improve the scalability and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network. To aid the technical consensus building process we are organizing a pair of workshops to collect technical criteria, present proposals and evaluate technical materials and data with academic discipline and analysis that fully considers the complex tradeoffs between decentralization, utility, security and operational realities. This may be considered as similar in intent and process to the NIST-SHA3 design process where performance and security were in a tradeoff for a security critical application. Since Bitcoin is a P2P currency with many stakeholders, it is important to collect requirements as broadly as possible, and through the process enhance everyone’s understanding of the technical properties of Bitcoin to help foster an inclusive, transparent, and informed process. this is how you can proper do something with public discussion and not in the old cowboy style with violence. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BNO on August 21, 2015, 02:58:41 PM Quote give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this?? Then underlying assumption that now gavin and hearn are becoming "the rulers of bitcoin" is not true. The Bitcoin core team consists of EVERYBODY INCLUDING Gavin and so on. The have been discussing for 3 Years now without coming to a solution!! All they do is make an workable suggestion and put it to vote. If 75% agree than this solution is accepted, till the next solution comes. This solution can not be forever simply because 8MB will not be enough for eternity. AFTER the vote in my world should this should happen: ALL Programmers from core the ones for it and against it come back together (after a couple of beers maybe) continue to work TOGETHER - democracy has decided. If this is not happening the problem is NOT that Andresen made a suggestion which came to vote, but the ability of the programmers to work in a team. It is a big threat for bitcoin if the core programmers discuss for 3 years and don't come to a solution - it shows that this super consensus oriented culture is not able to adapt to real world conditions. Remember in Evolution its: adapt or die.... Andresen is just showing a way out of this stalemate and with setting the barrier to 75% he shows that he is O.K. with the fact that his suggestion might be rejected... Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 21, 2015, 03:01:04 PM @BNO
pretty good post :) - i would sign that Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 03:02:17 PM and with the first problem we run to a central power or we create a central ruler to take control of bitcoin?
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 03:04:06 PM this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: mudiko on August 21, 2015, 03:09:00 PM i think we dont need bigger blocks for now.why should we make it bigger earlier which can occur some problem
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on August 21, 2015, 03:21:28 PM this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism Yeah, we should stop being open-source so that no one can alter the code. That way, a central group of developers make all the decisions and have to agree at all times. All users then either have to run that pre-approved code, or not take part at all. That would be much better than the system we have now where people can make a choice. ::) Then we can introduce trusted payment channels, too, so there's no need to facilitate more transactions on the blockchain! ::) Oh wait, there's already a closed-source project with payment channels. Why don't you go use that (https://ripple.com/)? Sounds like you'd enjoy it much more than Bitcoin. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 03:29:49 PM i think bitcoin need not a fork, not an increase of block but a vote decentralized system based in blockchain for all the users who want to take part and based in blockchain.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 21, 2015, 03:36:04 PM one of the largest pools:
http://up.picr.de/22882389qx.png 75-80% of the hashpower worldwide is for bigger blocks = XT (because there is no other solution at the moment) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 03:41:36 PM nice move to suicide.. :P. They are lunatics or they have gain so much money that they dont care.. I dont know why they cant see the storm coming..
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BitUsher on August 21, 2015, 03:45:06 PM Quote give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this?? Then underlying assumption that now gavin and hearn are becoming "the rulers of bitcoin" is not true. The Bitcoin core team consists of EVERYBODY INCLUDING Gavin and so on. The have been discussing for 3 Years now without coming to a solution!! All they do is make an workable suggestion and put it to vote. If 75% agree than this solution is accepted, till the next solution comes. This solution can not be forever simply because 8MB will not be enough for eternity. AFTER the vote in my world should this should happen: ALL Programmers from core the ones for it and against it come back together (after a couple of beers maybe) continue to work TOGETHER - democracy has decided. If this is not happening the problem is NOT that Andresen made a suggestion which came to vote, but the ability of the programmers to work in a team. It is a big threat for bitcoin if the core programmers discuss for 3 years and don't come to a solution - it shows that this super consensus oriented culture is not able to adapt to real world conditions. Remember in Evolution its: adapt or die.... Andresen is just showing a way out of this stalemate and with setting the barrier to 75% he shows that he is O.K. with the fact that his suggestion might be rejected... 75% is a very low threshold. 95% is the normal threshold for non-controversial soft forks. Your post appears to suggest that their has been a scalability stalemate for 3 years. In reality there have been great improvements and optimizations in the codebase over the years specifically to address scalability all of which have been done together through consensus as a team. XT marks a point where philosophical and technical differences between 2 of the developers diverged from most of the other developers contributing and working as a team far enough where they created their own repository to bypass working through the normal consensus procedures in core. The one good thing about XT is that is forcing all the other core devs to focus on coming up with more sophisticated and better solutions to compete with XT. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: omahapoker on August 21, 2015, 04:18:03 PM First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks? Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees? Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour? People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait. Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck. Ok maybe I'm wrong. But I was of the understanding that miners have always had the choice to not include transactions in blocks. This incidentally keeps the freedom of bitcoin free. Nobody is putting restrictions one way or another. You are right with your understanding. That is why some miners chose to create 1 Transaction blocks. And this block only is the 25 Bitcoin reward for finding the block. They don't want to include other transactions because they want their block small. By doing so they get a small advantage in propagation. Saying that, even when they might have found the block a short time after another miner, they could still outperfom that block and orphan him. So yes, miners have the full power over which transactions they want to include. You only can hope that another miner includes you when you did not get included because a miner doesn't want your transaction to be included. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 21, 2015, 04:18:38 PM Quote give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this?? Then underlying assumption that now gavin and hearn are becoming "the rulers of bitcoin" is not true. The Bitcoin core team consists of EVERYBODY INCLUDING Gavin and so on. The have been discussing for 3 Years now without coming to a solution!! All they do is make an workable suggestion and put it to vote. If 75% agree than this solution is accepted, till the next solution comes. This solution can not be forever simply because 8MB will not be enough for eternity. AFTER the vote in my world should this should happen: ALL Programmers from core the ones for it and against it come back together (after a couple of beers maybe) continue to work TOGETHER - democracy has decided. If this is not happening the problem is NOT that Andresen made a suggestion which came to vote, but the ability of the programmers to work in a team. It is a big threat for bitcoin if the core programmers discuss for 3 years and don't come to a solution - it shows that this super consensus oriented culture is not able to adapt to real world conditions. Remember in Evolution its: adapt or die.... Andresen is just showing a way out of this stalemate and with setting the barrier to 75% he shows that he is O.K. with the fact that his suggestion might be rejected... 75% is a very low threshold. 95% is the normal threshold for non-controversial soft forks. Your post appears to suggest that their has been a scalability stalemate for 3 years. In reality there have been great improvements and optimizations in the codebase over the years specifically to address scalability all of which have been done together through consensus as a team. XT marks a point where philosophical and technical differences between 2 of the developers diverged from most of the other developers contributing and working as a team far enough where they created their own repository to bypass working through the normal consensus procedures in core. The one good thing about XT is that is forcing all the other core devs to focus on coming up with more sophisticated and better solutions to compete with XT. yes i think that is true. hopefully they will make a decision in the nexts months. some competition could be good at this point. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: CounterEntropy on August 21, 2015, 04:26:06 PM 75-80% of the hashpower worldwide is for bigger blocks = XT (because there is no other solution at the moment) This is a highly incorrect and misleading statement. There are many proposals that are supporting bigger blocks, but not the XT way. i. BIP 100 by Jeff Garzik ii. BIP 103 by Peter Wuille iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0 (probably the best one) I would request you to update OP with these info as well. XT's fundamental document BIP 101 has not taken into account the market pressure. According to the following graph, there is still time left for saturation. https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: omahapoker on August 21, 2015, 04:28:31 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"? we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software. when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release. i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes. So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month? Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size I guess because of this image: https://i.imgur.com/Rd3PDPB.gif You see... even when we let it run with 1MB block, at the end of 2016 we will met the dead end of the 1MB block size. Blocks will be full, bitcoin will become an expensive transaction system or useless because risky when you have to fear your transaction doesn't go through. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: omahapoker on August 21, 2015, 04:31:45 PM that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry). i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible. Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"? we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software. when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release. i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes. So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month? Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size The reason why the big-blockians are calling for an increase in early 2016 is that at the current pace, the network will get saturated in mid-2016, and "traffic jams" will become a recurrent "feature". They claim (and I fully agree) that such state will be disastrous for bitcoin. Thus, that proposal is the same thing as denying the increase: it will result in saturation and traffic jams by mid-2016. The Blockstream devs openly want that to happen because they believe that a "fee market" is necessary and will somehow make bitcoin better, and that the traffic must be prevented from growing. Delaying the increase until 2017 will lead to that. https://d2jmvrsizmvf4x.cloudfront.net/iH4HvNPyTuaVAJlw2fuk_Exponential-Growth-Curve-sm.gif Before all it will lead to people using the blockstream lightning network. Which translates to income to those owning it. Well played Sir, i would say. Make bitcoin unuseable and provide the alternative. Korruption... ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 04:35:10 PM yeah and for that crap argument is better to give all the power for developing bitcoin to one person. One man to rule a p2p system.. Wake up! Are you blind?
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: omahapoker on August 21, 2015, 04:44:55 PM Since off chain transactions are more centralized then using the bitcoin blockchain directly, like Coinbase for example. It would be better if everyone could take advantage from the transparency and security that the Bitcoin blockchain provides instead of being “forced” to use third parties. No one is being forced to use alternative parties. You can use the blockchain but if blocks are full it will come with a fee. I'm perfectly fine with that because that's how the system is supposed to work. Haven't you people heard of the expression "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? We can't have "free" transactions. That doesn't work. There would be no incentive to mine and secure the blockchain. Go use paypal if you dont know the difference. I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence. Don't you have any better argument than that? I'm not shocked, pal. Go use PayPal because I have heard they don't have any fees. ;) At the momet i tend to think your username really matches you. So you think no one is forced to use paypal... let's bitcoin becoming a new mastercard. Fees have to be paid after all. You know all the the hungry employees of mastercard have to get a filled stomach. Only... bitcoin does not have employees, it has computers. And when these computers need to become more cost effective and more cheap then this is the step to do. Not wanting to have everything like it is and making bitcoin broken on the way because... we want to earn the same even with block halving. I don't even know what you want from bitcoin. It sounds like you completely not get what bitcoins advantages are. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 21, 2015, 04:51:11 PM 75-80% of the hashpower worldwide is for bigger blocks = XT (because there is no other solution at the moment) This is a highly incorrect and misleading statement. There are many proposals that are supporting bigger blocks, but not the XT way. i. BIP 100 by Jeff Garzik ii. BIP 103 by Peter Wuille iii. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0 (probably the best one) I would request you to update OP with these info as well. XT's fundamental document BIP 101 has not taken into account the market pressure. According to the following graph, there is still time left for saturation. https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= i support BIP 101 - which is nearly the same as XT. but there is no consensus about BIP 101 at the moment, so i support XT. time is running out in 2016: https://i.imgur.com/Rd3PDPB.gif Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BNO on August 21, 2015, 04:52:21 PM Quote 75% is a very low threshold. 95% is the normal threshold for non-controversial soft forks. This shows this "super-consensus" oriented thinking which will the gravestone of bitcoin. In a real existing democracy there is nothing like 95% approval rate. This are childish fantasies from people who don't have experience about how democracies work. No democracy in the world has approval rates over 90%. This kind of rates you only get in a stalineque dictarship like the beloved Führer of North Korea has. Think about it this way: making the barrier high for changes means you are not evolving fast, you just the same all the time. You think amazon of 1998 would have become amazon of today if 95% of the developers would have had to agree on every little change - i can hardly imagine that.. In my opinion 75% is much to high either you should change it to 51%. Many decision - important decision - are made in democracies around the world every day and the usually don't have approval rates of even 75%, let alone 95% (which is purely theoretical). The thing is this: if the simple majority of hashing power is malcious bitcoin is screwed anyway, what good is it then to insist that a protocoll change needs more than that? And for me the biggest threat for bitcoin is not that it changes - it has to change to evolve - it is that it's not changing fast enough... Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 04:54:54 PM I will NEVER join XT! I would rather run core with 10% of the hashing power and I'll wait for more confirmations!
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on August 21, 2015, 05:00:16 PM yeah and for that crap argument is better to give all the power for developing bitcoin to one person. One man to rule a p2p system.. Wake up! Are you blind? If the network does agree that larger blocks are the way forward, there's nothing to stop the Core team from releasing a Core client supporting larger blocks and continuing to develop. It doesn't "give all the power to one person" because anyone can create their own client. Likewise, if the network doesn't agree to larger blocks, it doesn't "give all the power" to the core developers either. Developers are not an authority. They can certainly give advice with their technical experience, but they can't force changes on a network that doesn't agree. The network would continue to function if there were 500 different developers with 500 different Bitcoin clients as long as those clients can all follow the same blockchain. Developers do not have power. Those securing the network make the decisions. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 05:10:38 PM Are the core devs even doing anything about this? Or is Gavin the only one being pro active? Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix? FUD.As I've stated this multiple times: supporting bigger blocks does not necessarily mean that you support XT. I for one, support bigger blocks but do not support XT nor Mike Hearn at all and neither should you. BIP 100: Quote Protocol changes proposed: Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit. Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015. Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today). Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold. Nice of you to delete my answer and replace it with "FUD.". I really had to check if i wrote this. ::) And what do you say? I never said that all developers want no blocksize rise. I consider the 2MB solution nonsense since it will bring nothing than a short timeout until the next fork has to be done. And for what reason? Right, to hold the fees high. Sorry but that is no solution to me. Telling me that this opinion is fud is so... stupid. Though maybe you mixed me with someone other. I for one know that developers are divided and yes, you don't need to support XT to support a blocksize raise. Though i want real solutions. Not something that will bitcoin make less useable only to see that the users go to some altcoin that is developed by some of the core devs. ::) Maybe you should start to know what others think before assuming you know it and attacking them because of your wrong assumptions. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 05:14:06 PM If you dont like how bitcoin works and it decentralized system and if you want to give the rule power to only one person why you dont create an altcoin and isntead of that you try to hijack Bitcoin?
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 05:24:03 PM Bitcoin without a block size limit could handle everything. Only because this limit was implemented we became problems. We easily could fight the "bloating" by implementing output related fees. According to the chart there is still a limit when block size reaches 8GB, so it still doesn't scale... Right. It doesn't scale. That's why i'm for a complete drop of the limit. It was considered temporary anyway to restrict the grow of the blockchain in the beginning. And you can see that the spam problem is there with a limit. It was not there when the limit was far away. So there is no reason that then suddenly spam would create huge blocks. No reason for a spammer to do that. So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? What are you speaking about? Where did i wrote something like that? You were the one who claimed we would need an additional network so that bitcoin could become a high fee transaction system. I would not be surprised if you actually would be one of these devs with goal conflict. I believe that if there is demand for more transactions the market will find a way to deal with it. Either by a increase of fees or something like the lightning network. I never said "we need the lightning network". Right. The market over all found already a solution. Mastercard, Visa and so all are expensive so people switch to bitcoin. So now you come and explain, "Let's make bitcoin expensive. People will find an alternative." Surely that is a clever plan. :D You said this: So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? ::) I interpret that as you don't think Bitcoin is working properly now? You interprete wrong. You claim that the fee for bitcoin transactions need to be so high that people start to use other solutions. So for you bitcoin is not the solution. It only will work with altcoins that fix it. Why using privately run third party solutions when we have the original. Only because some greedy persons want to break bitcoin for their own good doesn't mean that all bitcoiners will support them. And about massive block chain grow do you speak? You speak like the blocks are full constantly. They aren't. And spamming only works because the fees are increasing then. So how do you get the idea that there would be an uncontrolled grow without a block size limit? Where should that come from suddenly? I never claimed that the blocks will be full constantly, but obviously the block chain will increase in size since people will be able to make transactions without fees. And? I do those transactions all the time. Does this lead to no fees happening on the network anymore? Surely not. Maybe the market don't want to be forced using lightning networks? ::) And this adaption... it has led to enough confusion already. Didn't you read all the threads about newbies and even established members that got their transaction stuck because of spamming suddenly started? That surely will help bitcoin adoption. ::) About the options... that's mostly right. We often enough only have the choice to use the less worst option. Because the best option, that you think it is, doesn't have the needed support yet. If you don't like the lightning network feel free to deveolpe a better alternative. The market won't force you to use lightning network. And people complaining about transactions getting stuck don't know how bitcoin works - they are under the impression that they should be able to use bitcoin without any fees. Fortunately it seems like they have adapted and increased their fees since I don't see any people complaining now. I don't have an aversion against the lightning network. I have an aversion when the owners of that network try to make bitcoin worse only to make users switch to the lightning network. And momentarely it looks like that. And NO, i got transactions stuck too. Only because i did not notice that the spammers started again. And you very well still can be caught when you send your transaction in the wrong moment. Then how well will you think about that fast transaction system that lets your transaction hang in the air for days? And no, they don't complain anymore because the spam attacks stopped for now. By the way... you contradict yourself. In your race to get your confirmation through you will always have losers when the blocks are full. Someone will always have the transaction with the smallest fee. Even when the fee is high really. And only because you can send zero fee transactions doesn't mean that you will do that all the time or that everyone wants to max out that system. The reality proofs already that this is not the case. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 05:27:01 PM and who he think he is this guy Gavin and he want this power for himself. Is nothing anymore for bitcoin and bitcoin can survive without him. I think he has bid idea for himself
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: hdbuck on August 21, 2015, 05:33:59 PM fuck you oliver janssens aka litecoinguy.
go crawl back in that pityful foundation you waited so long to get a seat at. and kiss fuck hearn and the crappy lighthouse business you are doing together. lol yet another sketchy fundraising website. and hearn ripped you off how much again to 'finance' this shit? :D ps: trying to erase your racist BS too uh.. http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/25/belgian-racist-uses-spurious-copyright-c https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=olivier+janssens Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 05:36:42 PM Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money. *lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that? What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT? Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin. But why do you write that? Yes, most aren't aware. But bitcoin will become used more and more when people realize it's usefullness. That doesn't mean that we should give up and make bitcoin something different. Bitcoin will get used more and more. And this 1MB blocksize is even a risk preventing that. Imagine amazon would tomorrow directly accept bitcoins. Big marketing involved. You know what happens? Bitcoin will be killed. The blocksize limit will make it useless. And all the interested persons will spread the hate about money they "lost". The low speed and nothing works. No, bitcoin NEEDS to be prepared for new users and transactions. And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees? I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners. Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners. ::) Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network. There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network. But a big chunk will flow in that direction for sure. I mean they created that network to take away transactions from bitcoin. Again... i don't have anything against that network. Only that some people with might, remind me on politics, have their own agenda and seem to make it bad for us. *lol* You speak like you never used fiat. Yes, you can use fiat without fees. And yes, bitcoin started to replace a good chunk of it. Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly. Fiat without fees? Ever heard of inflation? Inflation is practically a fee on holding it. Not on spending it. If you spend all your fiat then you don't pay a fee anymore or at all. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: BNO on August 21, 2015, 06:35:39 PM Ars Technica reveals the cleary shady motivations of people AGAINST XT:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/op-ed-why-is-bitcoin-forking/ Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 07:05:05 PM Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain. There is no need to bloat the chain. It's a difference creating a service that is used by users voluntarely instead forcing them to another service by making the original one unuseable or too expensive. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 07:22:55 PM Oh... didn't see such list yet. Till now i thought the factions are relatively averaged strong but the list looks like there is no real chance that bitcoin core will get the 8mb blocks. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 07:27:34 PM Oh... didn't see such list yet. Till now i thought the factions are relatively averaged strong but the list looks like there is no real chance that bitcoin core will get the 8mb blocks. Thats good! Core should fork to a 2 or a 4mb block if the mempool is getting really close to full and i don't mean full like this: https://i.imgur.com/sMJb5If.jpg Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 07:30:43 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin". http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic. I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now. What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services? Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so. And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees. Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin. So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted. I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money. Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough. ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 07:31:59 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin". http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic. I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now. What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services? Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so. And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees. Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin. So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted. I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money. Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough. ::) READ THIS! http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/ Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 07:34:03 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Oh did you actually? And did you check the source of material that you read? Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board! Says the practically new account. ::) Sure, you are more legit than meono... ::) I agree... when we would have started with bitcoin to pay that kind of fee then we could have stayed at paypal too. Ridiculous how some bitcoiners see things. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 07:35:53 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Oh did you actually? And did you check the source of material that you read? Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board! Says the practically new account. ::) Sure, you are more legit than meono... ::) I agree... when we would have started with bitcoin to pay that kind of fee then we could have stayed at paypal too. Ridiculous how some bitcoiners see things. you people are gross. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: valiz on August 21, 2015, 07:39:32 PM What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services? BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so. And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees. Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin. So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted. Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 07:42:55 PM What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services? BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so. And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees. Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin. So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted. Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing. EXACTLY! speaking of... check dow! it's taking a huge shit! down almost 450 pts. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 08:08:13 PM core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm. The evolution never need a shock to be successful. Ok, and what will you do when amazon suddenly offers bitcoin and a huge amount of new users flow in? You would kill the bitcoin adoption because all users would have a terrible user experience. The only way for bitcoin to succeed is being free of restrictions. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 08:14:25 PM this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism At this point i can't take you serious anymore. You act like hearn and gavin have any might to destroy bitcoin. That's plain stupid. I agree that it is immature how gavin tried to extort everyone but there are no xt fans that want any of the other shit hearn has in his mind. So i really don't have a clue what goes on in your head. ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 08:16:46 PM i think bitcoin need not a fork, not an increase of block but a vote decentralized system based in blockchain for all the users who want to take part and based in blockchain. Sure... and everyone with enough coins will buy himself votes. Or how do you imagine that these votes could go on only slightly correct? ::) nice move to suicide.. :P. They are lunatics or they have gain so much money that they dont care.. I dont know why they cant see the storm coming.. Or maybe... just maybe you are not the clever one here. ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 08:22:26 PM yeah and for that crap argument is better to give all the power for developing bitcoin to one person. One man to rule a p2p system.. Wake up! Are you blind? Now i know what you fear. And yes, you are right. The thing is... nearly no one following bitcoin xt wants the other crap they want. The result will be that, in case bitcoin core is not forking, then users will switch to xt. Then bitcoin core needs to fork, otherwise it will die. When that happens xt users will switch back. Even when that doesn't happen. There would be other developers that would create xt versions that are free of the crap. And every bitcoiner could move on on that branch. You should not fear that. No one is forced to use any crap hearn or so can come up with. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 08:40:48 PM Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one. This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over. :( Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin". http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw-- Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic. I think you miss something. We don't want to devalue mining by lowering fees, we wan't to keep the fees the way they are now. What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services? Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so. And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees. Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin. So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted. I can't believe that bitcoiners go around screaming after control of their own currency. Only a certain amount of transactions, the miners need to earn more money. Right... as if the mining corporations doesn't earn enough. ::) READ THIS! http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/ It's funny how everyone claims to have the core principles of bitcoin on his side. The article says xt-people want a visa because they want to pay everything with it. I would say the other side wants something like visa since they want the fees to grow to a level that we could have used paypal from the start instead bitcoin. And why should we only raise blocks when the fire burns? You know that takes a while until it is coded and everyone switched. And with these limits you have NO space at all in case bitcoin adoption makes a huge step. When amazon, for some reason, would start to accept bitcoin then bitcoin would be dead. The user experience would be deadly. All because of these artificial block size limits. Restrictions... not really what you have in mind when thinking of bitcoin. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: bitcoinmasterlord on August 21, 2015, 08:46:16 PM What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services? BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so. And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees. Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin. So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted. Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing. *lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin. ::) Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me. So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide. See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 08:52:56 PM What would be the sense of bitcoin being slow like established payment services? What would be the purpose of bitcoin whe it would cost the same like other payment services? BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin!Bitcoin started with an alternative. Waiting until everything slows down and transactions aren't filled is plain stupid. I mean who does those transactions own? Bitcoiners. And when bitcoin doesn't work or you have to fear that it doesn't work when you don't pay the highest fee then this is doomed. I mean even with a high fee you could get your transaction stucked. When all others think the same and you at the end only have the lowest fee. You can't really predict that in case of spamming or so. And the miners will get their share. With adoption. The more transactions because more people are using it the more fees. Restricting adoption is plain stupid. I mean think about amazon adding bitcoin. We would have many new transactions now and all these new users would have a terrible experience. Surely that could be VERY bad for bitcoin. So in every direction, we need bitcoin to be unrestricted. Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing. *lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin. ::) Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me. So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide. See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying. Read this... http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/ in case you can't click Priorities of Bitcoin Bitcoin, as a vision conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto is a decentralized cash payment system. For such a system to work, you need a decentralized solution to the Byzantine General’s problem, which is something that I have detailed in the past and is succinctly defined here. The reason Bitcoin is such a brilliant invention, was that it solved the consensus problem in a decentralized way. The solution isn’t a perfect one, in fact, it cannot be formally shown to hold in all cases, (which is a source of consternation for many folks like Vitalik Buterin and likely drove him to develop Ethereum in response to the desire to have a formally provably secure solution), but it is shown in practice to work, in most real world situations so far. For this solution to work, Bitcoin holds the following priorities in descending order of importance: Consensus, decentralization, store of value, and payment system. It would seem that the goals of the Bitcoin project have since diverged, under the leadership of Gavin, to focus more on the payment system use case for Bitcoin, at the expense of consensus and decentralization. I would argue that sacrificing consensus, threatens all the other aspects of Bitcoin, not the least of which is its use as a stable store of value. In fact, I believe such a consensus breach is an existential risk to Bitcoin itself. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: valiz on August 21, 2015, 08:53:36 PM BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin! Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing. *lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin. ::) Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me. So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide. See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying. Not adoption. Scaling bitcoin forcibly. More transactions -> more bandwith needed between nodes -> more difficult to run nodes -> fewer nodes -> more centralization. I am supporting the block size increase described in sipa's BIP https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 (https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6). Forcing BIP101 with XT is reckless and it's actually an attempt to grab control of development. You can use some payment oriented altcoin if you can't afford to pay a 0.001 BTC fee. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: slaveforanunnak1 on August 21, 2015, 08:56:46 PM BS! If you want unrestricted adoption, make your own special payment altcoin! Don't ruin bitcoin! Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! You're no different from the central banks trying to squeeze growth from nothing. *lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin. ::) Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me. So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide. See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying. Not adoption. Scaling bitcoin forcibly. More transactions -> more bandwith needed between nodes -> more difficult to run nodes -> fewer nodes -> more centralization. I am supporting the block size increase described in sipa's BIP https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6 (https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6). Forcing BIP101 with XT is reckless and it's actually an attempt to grab control of development. You can use some payment oriented altcoin if you can't afford to pay a 0.001 BTC fee. this whole XT BS is starting to smell like a gov operation so bad! Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 21, 2015, 11:34:45 PM Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! Because its a false, arbitrary claim. "Compromising" decentralization can mean whatever you want it to mean. The fact of the matter is, the blockchain is growing every day and full nodes are going to get more expensive to run over time, regardless of whether the limit is raised. (What's so magical about "1mb"?) But if you raise it, at least you prevent (at least for a while) bandwidth problems and backlogs. People who are against bigger blocks are mostly A) Blockstream guys who took $21M in venture capital to build sidechains... or B) people who are too biased against Mike Hearn to see the situation clearly and are freaking out. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 22, 2015, 12:08:37 AM Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! Because its a false, arbitrary claim. "Compromising" decentralization can mean whatever you want it to mean. The fact of the matter is, the blockchain is growing every day and full nodes are going to get more expensive to run over time, regardless of whether the limit is raised. (What's so magical about "1mb"?) But if you raise it, at least you prevent (at least for a while) bandwidth problems and backlogs. People who are against bigger blocks are mostly A) Blockstream guys who took $21M in venture capital to build sidechains... or B) people who are too biased against Mike Hearn to see the situation clearly and are freaking out. Or C) Absolutely at the bottom of the IQ pool and scream nonsense about things that they cant even understand. Such as " Oh no, Mike and Gavin will take over bitcoin. " Their IQ is so low ,they cant grasp a simple concept: Fork blockchain require economic majority or consensus, Fork wallet client does not require shit and anyone can do it. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: tadakaluri on August 22, 2015, 01:48:59 AM A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.
Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: btccashacc on August 22, 2015, 01:54:22 AM im vooting for 8mb.. my reason is
if people smart like gavin trust it why i must think again Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: hdbuck on August 22, 2015, 01:55:55 AM A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time. no it doesnt. uninformed little twat. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: meono on August 22, 2015, 02:00:26 AM A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time. no it doesnt. uninformed little twat. no homo in here pls Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: hdbuck on August 22, 2015, 02:05:33 AM Why is it so hard to understand that it is impossible to scale bitcoin without compromising decentralization! Because its a false, arbitrary claim. "Compromising" decentralization can mean whatever you want it to mean. The fact of the matter is, the blockchain is growing every day and full nodes are going to get more expensive to run over time, regardless of whether the limit is raised. (What's so magical about "1mb"?) But if you raise it, at least you prevent (at least for a while) bandwidth problems and backlogs. People who are against bigger blocks are mostly A) Blockstream guys who took $21M in venture capital to build sidechains... or B) people who are too biased against Mike Hearn to see the situation clearly and are freaking out. damit that double mind fuck gavin and hearn pulled in (and out) on some brainz here leaves me speechless. like mike and gavin there is not even a beginning of data, its all about the bitching about blockstream.. cuz obviously they were not smart enough to come up with on the first place. ::) Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: TheAnalogKid on August 22, 2015, 12:21:53 PM A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time. no it doesnt. uninformed little twat. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0 As stated by Satoshi himself in the above thread, any change to the block size will render the client incompatible with the others. That will require a fork of the code to a new version with the changes, triggered to "on" by a specific set of criteria. Although Im not on board with XT's proposed changes, they are correct in the way they need to roll it out, it needs to be forked. If Core comes to a consensus about the block size increase, whenever it happens it will be the same thing. EDIT: Also on the "informed" mantra - I also suggest anyone who doesn't think a block size increase is needed, go read the thread I posted above, and others related. If the original original core group saw that this would be needed way back in 2010, there should be little argument against it now. One of the core visions was to someday be able to replace a processor like Visa. There's many threads out there with the actual math behind the number of Tps it would take to do so, and 1MB is simply not enough to handle that. It was a temporary measure to stop spam. Guess what? Those spam attacks we've had (and supposedly will have again soon) are exactly what's capable of hurting us now. There's also plenty of reading to do on Satoshi's original visions which address his ideas of centralization as Bitcoin grows. Staying true to the original vision actually supports the idea of consolidation of nodes as Bitcoin grows, along with introduction of what we now have as SPV wallets for those that can't run it. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: hdbuck on August 22, 2015, 12:37:53 PM Put your magnitude right back your ass.
And then Fork off. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: hdbuck on August 22, 2015, 12:44:51 PM It aint happening bitches, so you better pack up your frustrated little ass and migrate to some altcoin where you can reddit fork it all the way you want and gangbang it with all the mainstream bullshit you want.
Cunts. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 12:52:09 PM A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time. no it doesnt. uninformed little twat. actually it does. are YOU the one misinformed? or just trolling? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: TheAnalogKid on August 22, 2015, 01:10:07 PM A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time. no it doesnt. uninformed little twat. actually it does. are YOU the one misinformed? or just trolling? Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: zimmah on September 21, 2016, 07:37:43 PM This deserves a bump.
Still relevant. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on September 21, 2016, 11:12:24 PM This deserves a bump. Still relevant. If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool, which just found a block using the BU client: https://news.bitcoin.com/historic-day-bitcoin-pool-mining/ Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: Lauda on September 22, 2016, 07:32:27 AM This deserves a bump. Of course it is relevant, but it should either be renamed to something in the lines of: "Why I don't support bigger blocks right now and neither should you".Still relevant. If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool.. There's really no reason to link to anything owned by the altcoin pumper. Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks. Title: Re: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too Post by: DooMAD on September 22, 2016, 06:39:09 PM If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool.. There's really no reason to link to anything owned by the altcoin pumper. Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks. BU in and of itself doesn't "set" anything. The users running BU select their preferred size. Right now, the "altcoin pumper's" pool is set to 1mb blocks, because that's what consensus currently mandates. If we all moved to BU today, the blocksize would continue to be 1mb if that's what the majority of people set in their configuration. Technically, the option is there to set 16mb if that's what you wanted, but the network would simply ignore that while everyone else is producing 1mb blocks. I highly doubt there would be enough people setting it to 16mb to achieve a fork when there's enough difficulty finding support for 2mb at the moment. ;) |
