Bitcoin Forum

There's been endless talk about the prospect of a fork for Bitcoin, so at risk of ostracizing myself, I think it's appropriate to open up a poll to get a sense of where the community sits on this debate/decision/imposition. In better words - should Bitcoin technology be altered to accommodate lager block sizes beyond the existing 1mb?

Satoshi said (or wrote) that the block size should be kept as small as possible for as long as possible, to lower barriers to entry for new bitcoin adopters.

• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810

Some say that the existing technology can remain and still handle expanding volume and that the few shouldn't make the decision for the many. Some support:

• https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
• http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks

Some say a change to the technology (or "a fork") is required to keep Bitcoin accommodating growing transactions sizes. Some support:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
• https://bitcoinxt.software/welcome.html#sec-hardfork

I'm in no way an expert on the topic. But I believe in a free market, I believe in a free vote, and I believe Bitcoin was created to align with both of these ideals.

Here's an opportunity for a simple poll on the topic. Place your vote. No need to debate, argue, or share your rationale (unless you're a real veteran here, in which case we'd all benefit from your soapbox speech.) Just place your vote!

Thanks.

It's not so black and white. I would rather vote for something in between.

I'm all for somewhat increasing the block size, but way WAY more important than increasing or not (or how much) is that we maintain consensus.

A fork (or discrepancy between XT and Core) is MUCH WORSE than either solution.

So, no, I won't vote.

P.S. being into Bitcoin since early 2012 and having reasonable in-depth knowledge of the technicalities, I consider myself a veteran.

I will also not vote in this poll since I want the middle choice, as well.
The question currently is to vote on whether not to change or for extreme change. Both are equally undesirable.

I want to protect the current bitcoin economy and the systems that are built upon it,
but I also want evolution that will prevent potential monopolies, no matter where they come from.

EDIT: Sorry. I didn't read your last statement about not commenting unless your a veteran.
          I only commented because I want the third choice.

I support this statement, if it is said by Satoshi or not.

neither bitcoin core, nor bitcoin XT is good.
for bitcoin core, the speed of transaction is too slow, and at most it could handle up to 2000 transactions per block, in fact, most of the ASIC hashes were wasted.
if more people came up to bitcoin, the transaction would be big problem.

however, if with the bitcoin XT, the block size would double every 2 years, leading to the full node users giving up with that matter, it would end up with centralisation.
XT would only encourage monopoly to take us out from bitcoin full nodes.

raise the blockchain size depends on the volume and the sustainability instead.

By calling the options "the original" and "the next generation", you are being suggestive about which option to choose. It sounds like Bitcoin XT is the improved new version and Bitcoin Core is dead or something.

Besides that I am not sure what you are asking. You ask "should Bitcoin technology be altered to accommodate lager block sizes beyond the existing 1mb?" and yet you give the options Core and XT. Again it's suggested that you need to chose XT for "bigger block sizes", but in theory it's still possible to increase the block size while using Core.

there were already enough pools. you cant handle millions of new users with this artificial and unnecessary limit. 8MB is very conversativ and a good start.

you can find an overview here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141086.0


here is your satoshi quote:


Should Bitcoin grow, even if the network changes its structure as a result?

   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.

    — Satoshi Nakamoto, July 2010

Nah man, my word choices don't imply that at all, you imply that. Original means the first version of Bitcoin technology. Next Generation means the next version of Bitcoin technology. Don't impose your biases or opinions on to what are very simple words.

Some say "I wouldn't vote for either because I want something in the middle." That's fair, but Bitcoin XT is happening now. So if you want to voice your opposition to that move, this would be one great way to do it. To not vote is to simply agree with what's happening.

Thanks to those that voted.

There's a lot of additional discussion about this on the Forum and Reddit. This poll is becoming more and more relevant - take this opportunity to let your opinion be heard!

Add'l Information:
-XT - First block was mined by XT miner: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156231.0
-XT Node Adoption data - http://xtnodes.com/
-Core vs. XT - is there a difference to the average user? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156181.0
-Discussion on too much power for the few - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156253.0

If you're a fan of Bitcoin Core, vote for Core.

If you're not a fan of Bitcoin XT, vote for Core...as a strong sign of objection.

If you're a fan of Bitcoin XT, vote for XT.

My understanding was he intended on making core accessable to the masses but only because in the early days you had to run a full node to use bitcoin.  That is not necessary for 99% of users today making blockchain size less important.

The results of polls on bitcointalk.org should not be considered as valid data. If one wanted to they could easily manipulate the results.

I had the same impression as NLNico.

Reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's quote warning not to believe every quote you read on the internet.

But nntp is kind of a good example.  ISP's used to typically run their own servers, and some enthusiasts did as well in the early days.  Due to the data structure it actually produced an incentive to overcome some of the problems of the UFS filesystems, but that is just an aside.  With the popularization of binaries (mostly porn) eventually most ISP's threw up their hands and just outsourced nntp to a handful of specialists.  These centralized services came under pressure to censor, and http methods outstripped nntp for porn (and most everything else) eventually anyway.

I voted bitcoinXT in the poll but my real opinion is only if bitcoin core can't scale on time.

I am very surprised to see that XT is winning. I know this is not a lot of votes but still. I thought that majority of people here supports bigger blocks but not the XT.

I don't know what to say, but it seems there will be a lot of drama about this XT thing in the near future!

CORE with BIP.
the True ... the TRUST ... the developpers jobs.




CERTIFIED. https://piqueyeater.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/emeril-bam-gif.gif

There is certainly going to be a lot of drama in the near future, and imo that's a much bigger problem than blocksizes. I'm not confident that Bitcoin can get through a heated debate like this for an extended period of time without taking massive hits in value (just look at the recent prices). I understand this is potentially just a blip in the roadmap, but it still signifies the idea that Bitcoin cannot survive without a faithful community, and alienating parts of the community is counterintuitive.

Every site on this debate says they are the majority and the others are just [insert insult]

You can't really determine that. I am pretty sure, there a people on both sites, who have a handful of accounts here, who will manipulate this poll.

I think that bitcoin should work and adopt bigger block sizes. Bigger blocks will allow bitcoin to adopt into other FinTechs and allow innovation.

Bitcoin Core will stay, but before a fork takes place will implement bigger blocks...

Quite possible. They have option to end this fork debate once and for all, just by changing block size themselves, thus preventing two
different chains from being created. But they don't need to do this now, they have by jan 2016 to do this, but imho, they should do it now and stop people from panicking.

I voted for XT. Gavin's proposal is not perfect but it is good enough. The reality is that Bitcoin needs to scale in order to remain relevant; furthermore while this endless debate rages on technology keeps growing at a rate faster than what is being proposed in XT.

If Bitcoin does not deal with the scaling issue soon another coin will step up to the plate and make this debate moot by making both the Core and XT forks worthless.

Let's be honest here, I haven't voted.

I just don't know what to choose. Sorry but I'm not enough of a techie to make a clear choice. I've been using BTC for 3 years, I've been writing many posts here and elsewhere, but that doesn't mean I'm fully qualified to decide about what's best for the future of technology. This isn't a free vote. Very few people fully understands what's at stake here, and I'm not one of them. I think I know what's good for BTC: faster confirmations, the ability to handle a growing number of transactions per second, etc... But I can't say what's the best tech to achieve those aims. And I'm surprised there's so many people who think they have the knowledge to answer.

This thread has alots more votes , so you can see general censensus of the community : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.31220

Too bad Thermos censor it and lock it. Its the largest thread of the forum too.

Bold. This is the scary part.

A simple question: Does  Bitcoin XT change anything according to the limit of 21.000.000 ?  ???
 

no, blocksize limit has nothing to do with bitcoin rewards.

So has everyone made their opinion known? 49 people on this thread...about 500 on this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.31200) and the majority for both is to move to XT.

I guess that's all there is to discuss about it? (Now, what's the Dollar doing today?)

I hope you're right.  :-\

I'll have you know that I (and my army of alt accounts) have not voted in any of these polls. They are meaningless.

There doesn't need to be a fork.

Assuming there's no fork, I think having both clients is good to decentralize development.

That said, since XT includes support for Bip101 and Core provides nothing
in the way of scalability, I was forced to vote for XT.