Bitcoin Forum

I see many statements from well known community members and core developers about present and future block size limits.

I do not see a lot of are statements from the largest mining farms.

I have heard Blockstream has been attempting to lobby some of these groups. Are there any links to statements from large mining farms?

Gavin is the one doing lobbying on big businesses, including miners. I have not heard that Blockstream have been doing any lobbying so far, but hopefully they will soon to bring some balance to the lobbying done by Gavin, Mike & co.

Sure, let's offer these miners a profit share with the lightning network... ::) guess bitcoin goes down the drain. It's like we have goal conflicts everywhere. I feel, like we are having politics on that topic, at the moment. Not interest free geeks who want to support a decentralized currency.

Well, hopefully sane people will win.

Would you prefer political lobbying, or a science and engineering based approach to improve Bitcoin to make it safer to increase the block size in the future (https://scalingbitcoin.org/)?

Here you go http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size (http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size)


Most miners would agree over night to a kick the can solution.
This is why I think we should have informal approval voting, which allow miners to vote multiple BIP at the same time without discarding those who are not mutually exclusive.
Once vote would reach 95%, then, we can plan the fork in the future at an agreed date by the core devs.

If they agree with 8MB, exactly what do they not like about XT?

Ask them, but if they are like me, one of the problem is XT is not only about 8MB improvement, but also the dumb doubling.

The second problem, is that such a fork might eventually break (momentarily or forever, yet don't know) the network into 2 simultaneous currencies, each calling themselves Bitcoin, because it is contentious by nature, people will loose money, and the fault will fall on service providers that will have to pay the bill.
Not everybody support 8MB, so you can't expect to call it "a consensus".

Personally I support 8MB (and only that, no doubling) but not XT.

I think a better voting process should be put in place for miners to express what BIP they "approve" before planning any BIP in the source code for activation, this would have spared us lots of blood.

done (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154146)

What?  ???

Well this problem is MUCH worse if there are two up to date versions (one Core, one XT).

If the newer Core version would integrate these changes (thus no need for a separate XT version anymore), and only become effective if >75% is using the newer version (like XT does), then there is pretty much zero incentive to deliberately stick with the old version.

Whereas in a Core vs XT situation, people might stick to the latest Core, thus causing the whole 'two currencies' situation to persist.

XT implements BIP 101 (https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-0101.mediawiki) that says "8 MB from 2016-01-11" and a double every 2 years (so 16 MB at 2018) and up to 8 GB by 2036.

Will be interesting to know what they are saying.
Yes called that "dumb doubling", because crystal balling growth of resources and hard coding it is what I call "dumb", I prefer more adaptive proposal. :p

LiteCoinGuy listed some in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141086.0

Why do they name it Bitcoinxt? They can easily create a new coin and they can do any modifications they want to make.

The XT Manifesto is below, although it says 'We support a Bitcoin network in which ordinary people settle with each directly on the block chain', only big farms who has the fastest internet connection and fastest miners.The BTC can go forever as it is.Do they need excitement, why do they want new but not needed modifications?

The XT Manifesto
Bitcoin XT incorporates changes that didn't make it into Core, or are very unlikely to, due to differing philosophies.

The principles XT uses to guide decisions on patches are as follows:

We try to follow the founding vision of the Bitcoin project, as defined by Satoshi's writings. That means:
We support a Bitcoin network in which ordinary people settle with each directly on the block chain.
We aim for mainstream adoption, by people who may not be ideologically motivated.
We focus on the user experience, as ultimately, how users experience Bitcoin is fundamental to the project's success.
Better is better. Changes can be useful even if more work remains to be done, or there are theoretically better proposals not backed by working code. Put another way, perfect is the enemy of the good.
Truly mainstream adoption is not inevitable; it requires hard work by everyone. We must never make decisions based on the assumption of inevitable success.
There is a clear decision making process, and product decisions are made in a timely manner.
We maintain a professional working environment at all times. The developer discussion forum is moderated and troublemaking, nastyness, Machiavellianism etc will result in bans.

BTC_ISTANBUL, you're in the wrong thread.

No it can't. Increasing the block size limit is inevitable. If at some point in the near future, sending a Bitcoin transaction is by no means an assurance that will actually be mined, then Bitcoin would become useless. Higher fees doesn't help either. If more and more people are using Bitcoin (which was we all hope for, I assume?) then 1MB blocks are simply not enough.

I don't necessarily agree with XT, a more moderate approach like Pieter Wuille's proposal (https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6) would be better imho. But simply holding on to 1MB blocks is too shortsighted.

However I strongly DISagree with XT as it is. It should be merged into Core (and adjusted if necessary to find a compromise), splitting Bitcoin into Core and XT is very bad.