Bitcoin Forum

Objectives:
1. To follow the trend of big block approval / disapproval among full nodes
2. To follow the trend of big block approval / disapproval among miners
3. To follow the trend of big block approval / disapproval among major bitcoin economy players, holders, etc.
4. To discuss the strategy of soliciting support for big blocks (or otherwise)
5. This thread is not restricted to any specific big block client / BIP

Methods:
1. Follow the number of big block supporting full nodes, e.g. BitcoinXX
2. Follow the number of big block supporting blocks, e.g. version 0x20000007, coinbase message
3. Follow credible news source, twitter/reddit/forum accounts
4. Proof of stake signature. If you hold bitcoins and would like to voice out, please sign a statement with your address with bitcoin. Instructions (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153957.msg12153258#msg12153258)

Rules:
1. This is a self-moderated thread. Posts violating the rules may be removed.
2. This thread is NOT for big block debate, including the discussion of pros and cons of different proposals and implementations. If you want to debate please go somewhere else. I believe there are plenty of places for this.
3. I don't want this tread being censored. Please avoid directly mentioning or linking any specific big block enabling bitcoin client. For sarcasm or not, call them BitcoinXX, Bitcoin**, BitcoinCensored, etc. Welcome to internet censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blacklisted_keywords_in_China) (Based on the recent moderation style in this forum, this seems not necessary now)
4. No trolling
5. I will moderate more strictly if you have an ad-sig.

If you like this thread, please consider to donate a few mBTC to the address in my signature.

This is a summary of big block proposals I posted earlier on the bitcoin-dev mailing list

Currently, there are 4 block size BIP by Bitcoin developers:

BIP100 by Jeff: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
BIP101 by Gavin: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
BIP102 by Jeff: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/173/files
BIP??? by Pieter (called "BIP103" below): https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6

Should we use a miner voting mechanism to initiate the hardfork?
BIP100: Yes, support with 10800 out of last 12000 blocks (90%)
BIP101: Yes, support with 750 out of last 1000 blocks (75%)
BIP102: No
BIP103: No

When should we initiate the hardfork?
BIP100: 2016-01-11#
BIP101: 2 weeks after 75% miner support, but not before 2016-01-11
BIP102: 2015-11-11
BIP103: 2017-01-01

# The network does not actually fork until having 90% miner support

What should be the block size at initiation?
BIP100: 1MB
BIP101: 8MB*
BIP102: 2MB
BIP103: 1MB

* It depends on the exact time of initiation, e.g. 8MB if initiated on 2016-01-11, 16MB if initiated on 2018-01-10.

Should we allow further increase / decrease?
BIP100: By miner voting, 0.5x - 2x every 12000 blocks (~3 months)
BIP101: Double every 2 years, with linear interpolations in between (41.4% p.a.)
BIP102: No
BIP103: +4.4% every 97 days (double every 4.3 years, or 17.7% p.a.)

The earliest date for a >=2MB block?
BIP100: 2016-04-03^
BIP101: 2016-01-11
BIP102: 2015-11-11
BIP103: 2020-12-27

^ Assuming 10 minutes blocks and votes cast before 2016-01-11 are not counted

What should be the final block size?
BIP100: 32MB is the max, but it is possible to reduce by miner voting
BIP101: 8192MB
BIP102: 2MB
BIP103: 2048MB

When should we have the final block size?
BIP100: Decided by miners
BIP101: 2036-01-06
BIP102: 2015-11-11
BIP103: 2063-07-09

UPDATE: 201508160615UTC,

Big block supporting full nodes: 242/5898 = 4.1%

https://i.imgur.com/KNzjJac.png
source: http://**nodes.com

BIP101 blocks on mainnet: 0/1000 (block 370078)

BIP101 blocks on testnet3: 0/1000 (block 530670)

UPDATE: 201508161500UTC

BIP101 supporting full nodes has become the top 4 user agent on Bitcoin network
https://i.imgur.com/RErF3Wg.png

UPDATE: Slush allows miners to choose whether they want to mine a BIP101 block or non-BIP101 block: https://twitter.com/slush_pool/status/634056538190168064

UPDATE: Slush has found the first BIP101 block at height 370434, 2015-08-18 18:09:27 UTC

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000174419fa2ba5003e123dbd97c6982aff1863f016b04789d

UPDATE: block 370084 201508160639UTC

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)

Data source of mining power: 1 week data at https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC


20150826 UPDATE:

BIP 100:
DiscusFish / F2Pool  (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/discusfish)
Kano CKPool (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/kano)
BitClub Network (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/bitclubnetwork)

UPDATE: 201508160652UTC

Major exchanges publicly supporting big blocks:

Big block:
Coinbase: https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/595741967759335426

8MB:
BTCChina: 30days volume 398,009BTC https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)
Huobi: 30days volume ~1,000,000BTC https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)

-------------------------
More:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocksize_debate#Entities_positions

Proof-of-stake signature

The signing address must hold at least 1 satoshi.

Please submit your signature by

• Sending to me by BitMessage BM-NBaYi7eyNHXfWQ9Piie9PJ8fMJxbUZ8Z (Best for anonymity)
• Posting in this thread (if you don't care anonymity)
• PM to me. I will try my best not to disclose your identity but no guarantee could be made

Please sign a statement with your address with bitcoin, with the following recommended formats:


Approval:

• This address 1xxx with 1.23BTC supports big block. 201508161810UTC.
• This address 1xxx with 1.23BTC supports BIP100. 201508161810UTC.
• This address 1xxx with 1.23BTC supports 8MB block. 201508161810UTC.

Disapproval:

• This address 1xxx with 1.23BTC does not support big block. 201508161810UTC.

Mixed:

• This address 1xxx with 1.23BTC supports BIP101 but not BIP102. 201508161810UTC.
• This address 1xxx with 1.23BTC does not support big block until 201703010000UTC. 201508161810UTC.

In you signature please quote the total amount of Bitcoin in the address, and the time of signature. The examples above mean the message is signed at 2015-Aug-16 18:10UTC. If you want to mention a time in your message (like the last example), please use the same format.

Signatures listed here are verified by me. To save space, the signatures, which could be found in the replies to this thread, is not included.

Supporting BIP101 (2.45396218 BTC):
17J2X8gcNKAinqsgLLXjLfdYm8bakNDA6H - 2.45396218 BTC


Supporting big block (0.58531338 BTC):

reserved

Great initiative! Look forward to seeing the info in this thread.

Big block supporting full nodes: 242/5898 = 4.1%

https://i.imgur.com/KNzjJac.png
source: http://**nodes.com

BIP101 blocks on mainnet: 0/1000 (block 370078)

BIP101 blocks on testnet3: 0/1000 (block 530670)

UPDATE: block 370084 201508160639UTC

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)

Data source of mining power: 1 week data at https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

BTCChina isnt labeled as Chinese? I mean........China is in the name...lol

I mean the source is in Chinese language

those pools support bigger blocks but they won't switch to a fork like XT, if i remember correctly they said that once.

This thread is NOT about any specific big block implementation

very valuable thread, thanks. i guess you can add KnC Miners as pro 8 MB.


(the only way for bigger blocks is XT)



edit:

just saw that KnC is already listed.

Also some well known people like Roger Ver and Andreas Antonopoulos support bigger blocks.

It is counted already

Just a heads up: chinese pools supports agreed big blocks. That doesn't necessarily mean they support switching to eks tee. http://cointelegraph.com/news/114657/chinese-mining-pools-call-for-consensus-refuse-switch-to-bitcoin-xt

Thanks for this thread, @OP!

Big block supporting client has become the top 5 user agent in the Bitcoin network

https://i.imgur.com/FHDQv3H.png

and it is only 2 days old. there is a reason why the software was released MONTHS before we NEED that software. because some clever folks have the ability to predict what will happen in the future and it is good to be prepared.

Is there a minimum required amount of Bitcoin in an address to post a signed statement in this thread?

1 satoshi at this moment. I may raise the requirement if there is an evidence of spam.

Watch it!

The BIP101-supporting client has become top 4

https://i.imgur.com/RErF3Wg.png

Are there any clients that implement the other BIPs?

finally! some self leadership here.  thank you!  even if it is a bct thread.

No AFAIK

Very interesting thread! Watching. And the short description comparing BIP's is a must. It has been floating for quite some time but many people seem to have never read it.

That being said, good to see quite a bit of support for big blocks from more than half of the hashrate. But until they're validating blocks with another client, it doesn't really mean anything.

(Edited to comply with thread rules)

Why is that?  Neither alternate client nor core supports big blocks now.  Either client can be modified to support bigger blocks when the community agrees.

There's a client supporting bigger blocks, as can be seen on release notes.


Thanks for pointing it out, post edited.

https://i.imgur.com/CsvW7Vm.png

It becomes top 3, though it will be much harder to become top 2.

It is very interesting to see that Bitcoin Core nodes are not decreasing, while the total number of nodes is increasing. This suggests that many BIP101-supporting nodes are new ones.

Great thread, posting to show my appreciation and to watch it. Interestingly enough a lot of people are not aware of BIP 100.

What does BIP101 mean? Does it mean that some want an official core update with bigger blocks and you should support BIP101 for that? then what is the difference between BIP101 Core and XT?

BIP101 is Gavin's proposal: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153957.msg12153253#msg12153253

BitcoinXX = Bitcoin Core + BIP101 + some non-consensus-critical functions unrelated to block size

Looks like the reason we are not seeing a more rapid increase in nodes is the time it takes to synch the blockchain? Could epxlain the sudden surge in nodes, all syncing for a week to come online around the same time?

I don't think you need to be synced before you are visible on https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/

In fact, many BIP101 nodes are syncing, suggesting that they are new ones:

https://i.imgur.com/bx98uGB.png

Do you think it is possible that someone is simply setting up tons of Bitcoin XT nodes just to make it seem like there is more support for it?

Also, am I the first person to do this?

Someone has created a client which is totally identical to BitcoinXX but actually not supporting BIP101 and will mine blocks with version 0x20000007. This is my response.




Yes. Your message is quoted.

Update: 201508171735UTC

https://i.imgur.com/UV6l4gg.png

Increasing steadily. Please note that there are attempts to contaminate the data by spoofing clients. However, the growth looks natural to me: faster at the first 2 days, and now become slower.

And we have the first block mined (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156231) with a client with big block support!

Block 370434 (https://blockchain.info/pt/block-height/370434) by Slush

It took some work, but I fixed it for you.

This one needs to be added to the list in my opinion - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0

It's happening

Slush has found the first BIP101 block at height 370434, 2015-08-18 18:09:27 UTC

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000174419fa2ba5003e123dbd97c6982aff1863f016b04789d

There are hundreds if not thousands of proposals like this. They won't be included unless a BIP number is assigned, or I believe it's very likely to be assigned.

Slush allows miners to choose whether they want to mine a BIP101 block or non-BIP101 block: https://twitter.com/slush_pool/status/634056538190168064

This thread is not for discussion of which proposal is good or bad, so your comment is deleted.

bitpay

https://twitter.com/spair/status/634174754879078400

OKcoin

https://twitter.com/okcoinbtc/status/598412795240009728


blockchain.info

https://twitter.com/OneMorePeter/status/595676380320407553
https://twitter.com/niccary/status/595707211994763264

Antpool

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314

This one is interesting. The sentiment is changing. If people feel the situation becomes really intolerable, they will press the nuke button

Just re-posting my message on mailing list here:

There is one, and only one scenario that BitcoinXX will win: it is supported by major exchanges, merchants, and investors, and they request miners to support it. When BIP101 is activated, these exchanges will refuse to accept or exchange tokens from the old chain. Miners in the old chain can't sell their newly generated coins and can't pay the electricity bill. They will soon realize that they are mining fool's gold and will be forced to switch to the new chain or sell their ASIC. The old chain will be abandoned and has no hope to revive without a hardfork to decrease the difficulty. The dust will settle in days if not hours.

Will the adoption of BitcoinXX lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually, Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they would not adopt XX. So they must not be the leader in this revolution. Again, miners need to make sure they could sell their bitcoin in a good price, and that's not possible without support of exchanges and investors.

What about that Not-Bitcoin-XX? The creator of the spoof client may stay anonymous, but the miners cannot. 95% of the blocks come from known entities and they have to be responsible to their actions. And again, they have real money in stake. If bitcoin is destroyed, their ASIC serves at best as very inefficient heaters.

So Bitcoin-XX is basically in a win-all-or-lose-all position. It all relies on one condition: the support of major exchanges, merchants, and investors. Their consensus is what really matters. With their consensus, that could not be a Schism hardfork. Without their consensus, nothing will happen.

We also shared some information about NiceHash and Bitcoin XT (nothing changes for NiceHash, we are trying to stay neutral in this matter): https://www.nicehash.com/index.jsp?p=news&id=31 … Keep on hashing ;)

China is fundamentally disconnected from everywhere else though. There might be an outside possibility that certain Chinese miners and exchanges might attempt to soldier on. They don't sell in the West and Chinese traders probably barely have a clue who Coinbase or Bitpay are. It's very unlikely but if they're that turned off by XT and it's looking like a winner they might attempt it.

I am not so sure, I got the impression that big miners are selling their coins to the OTC market which can be pretty broad. hard to tell though.

I'm sure that's very possible but I think we often underestimate how little of a shit China gives to the things drive us batty on here though.

Yes. With such people should be friends! ;)

Good topic! I like.

Just more cheap, obvious talk.   ::)

"..IF we see majority has switched"

XT's legions of potential second/third movers do no good if it's too risky for the first wave of defections from Bitcoin Core's 6 year old, $5 billion socioeconomic majority.

Where are all the tweets of people declaring they can't wait to be the first to stick their necks out by accepting XTcoins?   ;D

Sentiment may change very rapidly if things become really intolerable. That may happen when the fee for a standard 225 bytes tx is increased to > 1USD. We are still far from such tipping point

Only now noticed... Two more blocks were mined with big block support. Were they from Slush too or do we have a new miner?

I'm working on an unbiased paper for the scaling Bitcoin workshop, so far my research shows some very.....interesting results. Right now it looks like BitcoinXT is not sustainable at all. Long term, well I guess everyone needs to see what my research digs up (because I've more or less just started, but I have been able to draw some conclusions so far).

Seems like there is even another argument, why node-count is a really bad indicator for XT-success:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i1dra/psa_its_super_easy_to_manipulate_the_node_count_i/

Besides that: Has anybody looked at https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/ recently?
There are only 35.8% running the newest version of Bitcoin Core. (0.11.0)
And even that is not really guaranteed, since you could easily change what is sent.
My guess is, that a lot of full node provider have a customized version, but didn't bother to change this identity-string. That would also be a good indicator, why so many full nodes are not on an up-to-date-version(since merging in a customized version is more work).
There could even be people who have merged BIP101 into their customized version, but didn't change the identity-string, since they are not aware, that there are people looking at that.
But, how many full node provider might have be in one of this scenarios is purely speculative.

Official announcement for BIP101 support.

- Bitpay

- Xapo

- Circle

- Bitgo

- Bitnet

- KnC Miners

- Blockchain.info

http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

Thanks, I'm just going to post this.

"we will run code that supports this." Does it mean Bitcoin XX?

I'm pretty sure it means: If Core doesn't implement it, then it will be XT.

indeed. the industry leaders know that bigger blocks are necessary in the mid term.

Now ItBit:


http://w3.itbit.com/blog/itbit-endorses-bip101-larger-block-sizes

Blocktrail showing pool support

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

I have removed a number of posts. May I remind you the rules of this thread:

1. This is a self-moderated thread. Posts violating the rules may be removed.
2. This thread is NOT for big block debate, including the discussion of pros and cons of different proposals and implementations. If you want to debate please go somewhere else. I believe there are plenty of places for this.
3. I don't want this tread being censored. Please avoid directly mentioning or linking any specific big block enabling bitcoin client. For sarcasm or not, call them BitcoinXX, Bitcoin**, BitcoinCensored, etc. Welcome to internet censorship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blacklisted_keywords_in_China) (Based on the recent moderation style in this forum, this seems not necessary now)
4. No trolling
5. I will moderate more strictly if you have an ad-sig.

https://i.imgur.com/J2EHDXo.png

Bitcoin XT 0.11.0 is now showing as the most popular client version.  As node count increased by a few thousand just today, it's likely these numbers are due in part to the pseudo node trick described here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i1dra/psa_its_super_easy_to_manipulate_the_node_count_i/

Correction: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iao3i/how_to_run_3000_completely_legit_full_nodes_aka/

Most of them come from the same IP with different ports, e.g. 178.62.216.43

I think https://getaddr.bitnodes.io should ignore all nodes that are not on port 8333. This should substantially increase of cost of the attack

This address 17J2X8gcNKAinqsgLLXjLfdYm8bakNDA6H with 2.45BTC supports BIP101. 201508250426UTC

IN7Pm25ViuDNtUeW+6m5ywv6osLtGk5D4nc7aAlvWdNJLnMd9O96Qc7mO0FXVDpyIAiWfIVYLqoWrOZz0V5K/r0=

Thank you. First page updated.

LOL

did they think no one would notice?

It has become obvious that the node count is a pretty useless piece of information in this debate (due to the easiness of manipulation).
OP you need to update your thread on a few points:
BIP 100 support:
DiscusFish / F2Pool  (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/discusfish)
Kano CKPool (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/kano)
BitClub Network (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/bitclubnetwork)

Thanks and updated. Will make it tidier later

Does BIP number get assigned only to core dev's proposals ?

No. Anyone who submits a BIP to the BIP Editor (Gregory Maxwell) will have their proposal considered and if accepted, it will be assigned a BIP number. See BIP 001: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki.

That proposal is still being discussed on the mailing list. I don't know if he has submitted it to gmaxwell yet.

Bitfury now supporting Bip 100.

Does it mean that Gregory Maxwell can unilaterally reject a proposal to assign any BIP no. ?


Proof ?

Is it really that hard to verify yourself? (https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000059567813cc4ea6f15be3b57420ee29d9c5ba3452ba3958)

https://i.imgur.com/gwVU40C.png

He cannot unilaterally reject a proposal. It is not in his power to judge a BIP, only to determine if it is sound and complete. See this section of BIP 001: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#BIP_Editor_Responsibilities__Workflow

Now Breadwallet supports BIP101

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iwdan/aaron_voisine_of_breadwallet_voices_support_of/

The only "XT" blocks mined thus far are actually from a spoofed XT node.

Spoofed nodes will inevitably lure XT into a death trap from which there is no escape.  Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

All the Gavinistas have done is helped Slush's pool by rewarding its cheap marketing theatrics.   ;D



% RealXT blocks:        0
% FakeXT blocks:    100
% #R3KT Hearn: >9000

Those are "BIP101 blocks", not "XT blocks". BIP101 won't be active until January 2016 so it makes no difference at this moment.

Jeff Garzik finally made a proper BIP draft and it is up online now at https://github.com/jgarzik/bip100/blob/master/bip-0100.mediawiki. This file actually specifies the method for deployment and method for changing the block size limit. It also seems to have included some other changes that people have suggested.

XT has 0.1% of the network.  Rounded to the nearest whole number, that equals zero support.

https://i.imgur.com/ukSA7Di.png

Also, that singular "XT" block was mined with a spoofed version string, not by an actual XT node.

So in reality, XT support is stuck at absolute zero.   :)

Shameful that Slush isn't really running a client that supports big blocks. Wasn't expecting this from them. They publicised their pool as big Block supporting and gave miners a tutorial to join them in the big Block pool, but end up spoofing ::)

I wonder how many pools REALLY support big blocks and if any block has been mined with a client that has not been spoofed. Giving the idea that you support something isn't really the same as supporting it.

That known website that tracks blocks also seem to have stopped differentiating spoofed from real nodes. Anyways, I certainly know what nodes I'm running.

Shameful?  More like hilarious!  It was a brilliant marketing exercise, using XT's social engineering attacks to bring in suckers to help mine some blocks.

You expected an established pool to just suddenly drop untested shite like XT into their production environment, just to appease some cranky insignificant Gavinista malcontent splinter group?

LOL, tell us another one!

But hey, at least you're not among the dead-enders bitterly clinging to the idea that Slush wasn't spoofing, Because Intentions And Stuff.

Nothing hilarious in making a move like this. Supporting a specific client and/or BIP should be something done, not simply thought out. Slush apparently only thought out and didn't really act. He didn't support his beliefs with an act. He should have simply change the client on the big block support port.

Decisions like these in Bitcoin should be weighed in. It's the future of the whole system and economy we're deciding.


Yes, I did. What makes the spoofed client more reliable than the client that supports big blocks? What makes the client that supports big blocks less reliable than the spoofed client or the reference client? I'm talking stability-wise only, of course.


This has nothing to do with a single entity in my opinion. So I seriously don't know what to say about the "cranky insignificant Gavinista malcontent splinter group" :D


The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

Another one

Coinify supports XT

http://www.coindesk.com/press-releases/coinify-supports-bitcoin-xt/

What good is Coinify's support for XT?

Aren't they a day late and a dollar short?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Final warning to people who want to debate here. I made this very clear in the OP: This thread is NOT for big block debate, including the discussion of pros and cons of different proposals and implementations.

in that case you should deleet the whole iCEBREAKER fake posts  ::)

Some of his posts were on-topic and kept. Many were deleted.

I think this is enough for meta discussion

One of my on-topic posts (wherein I mocked your belief people would actually submit proof of stake signatures) was deleted.

Why is that?

It is the objective of this thread, and it is the most reliable method.

Meta discussion is off-topic. I'll delete any meta discussion in the following 48 hours

A few blocks have been mined lately, as per XTnodes, but I'm not sure they are now able to distinguish fake support from real support.

And now Bitstamp can be added to the pile.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3utza9/bitstamp_supports_bip_101_and_will_switch_systems/

That doesn't really matter and I don't really care. Without miners it is pointless. As long as they don't support the CEO implementation of Bitcoin all is good.

It does matter and you should care. If the industry decide to fork then miners will follow if they want to continue to sell their coins on the market. The economic majority matters, not miners. You should know better than that.

You may be underestimating the intelligence of bitcoin miners and pool operators. Companies like Coinbase posturing about using an alternate client really does make no difference. Only miners choose if a hard fork will occur and I think you can count on them to act in their own best interests long term.

And what is stopping them to fork and mine their own chain? Nothing. 

You're forgetting the fact that without a fork, the miners will still be able to sell their coins on exchanges. They don't have to follow anyone.

Please don't try to bring that stupid discussion here to the forum.
Don't take this personal but I think it isn't funny to start everytime the same debate again.
We will have the scaling conference in a few days and then we all will be a bit smarter how things will continue.

miners does not really need to sell on exchange, they can always sell privately, i'm sure that there are many that are willing to buy the so "worthless BIPxx" coins

miners are the backbone of bitcoin, they come first than anything else

I guess that this discussion is heating up again. 6th December is also very soon! Here we go again fellas, hope this time this will be solved and over with! :)

Here I am, necromancing the "Big block support observer" thread from last year.

I observe that big block support is #rekt.   8)

And where is knight22?  Ashamed to show his face in public, logging in but not posting.

Aww poor thing.  Did the mean old iCEBREAKER crush you under 75,000 horsepower of nuclear-turbo-electric force?

what i dont understand about you iCEBREAKER: why are you supporting monero?
do you know that miners control the blocksize there? (it has a penalty if they grow a block too much though)

how can you support a coin with bigger blocks and at the same time be against a blocksize change for bitcoin?

Big blocks: REKT

Bitcoin is the One True Blockchain, destined to be the Mother of All Settlement Networks (high-powered money for inter-bank lending).

Experiments with blocksize, etc. belong on the alts, not imposed by governance coup and social pressure on BTC.  Changing control variables in the middle of an experiment is bad science.

As marginal users are priced out of BTC, alts provide the same services with right-sized blocks.

You would already know this if you followed my prolific posting throughout last year's Grand Schism; see them for more details.

Especially this one:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10401014#msg10401014

and these two:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10392435#msg10392435

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10392532#msg10392532

Oh good, I see knight22 has finally been discharged from the burn ward and is able to again post here on Theymos's humble forum.

Just in time, too.  The Toominista insurgency is floundering, and there is much doubt that late game white-knighting by Gavin can save it from the fate of XT (ie, being a laughingstock and warning to all future hard forkers).