Bitcoin Forum

Every once in a while a good topic comes up for debate in the Bitcoin world.
Then since they are few, we beat them into the ground.
Then they degenerate.

Core developers, we want bigger blocks. Give us bigger blocks. Put this fork headache to rest.

Ok. That being said, I'm done on this topic. I'm going to hodl and see where the cards fall. After the dust settles, Bitcoin will continue.

Let the miners decide their fees. Block size and miners accepting transactions for a fee are two different topics.

What the hack consensus you are talking about?

There is NO consensus right now. There is no consensus to raise the block size. There is no consensus not to raise the block size

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

That's 100 years away. If bitcoin is still a thing in 100 years, transaction fees for a block would probably worth more than a block reward today.

That was my understanding and I assumed everyone's understanding.
In theory, if everything goes according to original concept,
when fees need to take over, btc value should easily cover all mining costs.

It is pure speculation, we can't imagine what will be cost of a bitcoin in the future. And in case of prediction future linked to a computers and technology people are very bad.
Only 20 years ago we did not even dream of computers we have today. Same goes with cryptocurrency and its tech.

Satoshi's speculation is what created Bitcoin/bitcoin and it is ours that gives it its value.

So you are saying that Bitcoin has failed based on the whitepaper so soon,
and we need to manipulate a fixed market (fee market) to give higher fees to the miners immediately,
and the miners aren't requesting a fixed market or a raise in fees yet?

I understand this conversation in the future, say 10-20 years maybe, but now?

C'mon most of them do. Even Luke-jr (who wanted smaller blocks now) said ok to bigger blocks in 2017 in bip103.
The question is only 'when'.
No argument there, but again the time is important. Worrying about that now seems premature. When we have some adoption maybe...

Right i'm guessing some people fear that the transactions fee will drops since there will be so much room left, but to be honest its not much of a big deal right now. But if bitcoin is to go bigger, bigger block size is simply needed. Maybe it could be just a little more gradually, retargeted as need arise..

We're going to hit the max capacity of 7 transactions per second long before the block reward dries up...

Like jl2012 says: currently there IS no concensus. This ongoing debate is an attempt to get it. It would be great if all Bitcoiners (or at least a vast majority) can find some common ground.

1. This is not an issue until many decades.

2. If you want Bitcoin to survive that long, we will need way more than 7 tps.

3. How the hell would increasing the block size limit (note: the limit is increased, not the block size itself per se) jeopardize miner's income? It will only allow them to mine more txs per block (thus more profit from fees), at the same cost, thus the incentive for miners to continue securing the network will persist.

I made various payments for 0.0001 fee and they went through without a problem. Until now I don't need bigger blocks.

Do you seriously not see the potential issue at hand?

Of course, nobody needs bigger blocks now. But if when we're hitting that 1MB limit, and suddenly transactions are stacking up, and backlog gets bigger and bigger, then all of a sudden we need a higher limit, so in case of peak volume Bitcoin can still handle it.

This is all about being more future-proof. Why not take action now, while it will have no practical influence (most if not all blocks will still be smaller than 1MB for quite a while) and we can robustly, consistently roll out this patch through the network.

Doing so in a hurry, when it's actually necessary right then and there, it will create chaos, tumult, confusion, panic, with exchanges who have updated and miner's who haven't (or reverse), blockchain forks, and other misery.

Let's not wait until it's too late! And waiting until this gets really urgent, is too late.

This is a very simplistic view of whats going on right now  :-\.

Or not.. The idea now is to have very cheap transactions. If bitcoin value increases, that means transactions will be cheaper in satoshis than currently somewhere in the future. The ONLY way to get more bitcoin as miner reward is to have more transactions at a low transaction cost to keep transactions cheap.. For that, we need bigger blocks.

No, it isn't so far away. Have you looked at how the subsidy will look like in 2025? It will probably be a little higher than 3 BTC, and that's a strong incentive to include some transactions in your blocks (unless the price skyrockets a bit, but that's speculation). The subsidy will become insignificant a lot of years before it goes to zero.

Op if you think ppl should stick with bitcoin core if the core team agree to give us bigger block , you really ditch the people that gave you that option in the first place.

Who think of bitcoin future and scalabilty? Not the core team that you're begging. They only do it so they can still be in authority and thats an insult to our intelligence.

Think of this as price matching, i support the business that gave us the best price thus i refuse to pricematch and go to the original business who give us the best price. Vote with my wallet.

The same quality research that you had to conclude Gavin was behind the spam attack?

No thanks i dont feel like pulling shit out of my ass.

no, man.
unless you could prove that "XT is still qualifying the bitcoin core protocol", otherwise, bitcoin would not be able to stay for a long time due to the blockchain matter.
i could only support for up to 128mb or 256mb per block, you know, sustainable developments.

It's going to have to fork to allow bigger blocks, eventually. That's pretty much inevitable. What is the value in delaying it? Wouldn't the fork be more damaging in the future, when there are more nodes and investors on the line?

they think they can find a better solution in a few months time-frame, i believe that if this is the case they should've worked for those solution long way before, now it's too late we need to build immedaitely a solution

or maybe some of them want that those changes are implemented directly in bitcoin core and not in an "alternative client"

Wouldn't it be easier to hardcode a minimum fee of 0.0001 to avoid spamming, rather than dividing the Bitcoin community with a fork?

I support large blocks. There should not be any limit, miners choose which transactions to include in their mined blocks with the fees they like more. This is free market, and healthy competition. Bitcoin must not be controlled by a small group of developers. I am switching to XT until Bitcoin Core will support larger blocks. Keep up the great work, Gavin & c.

Fiat money is already controlled by a small selected group of people, if you like fiat money stick to 1 Mb blocks. If you like bitcoin, you should all upgrade to XT.

Uhm.. I support bigger blocks too. But what you are saying doesn't add up: XT has a single commiter, while Core has at least five.

XT is Core with larger blocks.

Core has 5 committers, XT 6.

+1 :-)

Haha. Uhm... you're joking right? Firstly, XT is Core plus a a series of patches (not just larger blocks). Secondly, they cannot co-exist they are incompatible with eachother.

Sorry but which consenses do you mean?
No decision has been made so far.

The lack of ability to execute according to one's vision within the bitcoin-core dev process has made forking to XT inevitable. If not now, I could have seen another dev creating an 8M fork within the next year given the lack of progress within the group of core devs.

Most of bitcoin-dev don't seem too be interested in what end users want. This disconnect between devs and users is a big big reason that XT has such a groundswell of support. Ignoring what the end user wants will almost always lead to revolt in one way or another

That is the whole situation.

I'm for bigger blocks as well. But it would be great to have more options than just XT.
I hope core devs realize that

I will accept the other patches (some of which are useful, like the DNS seed update, others are harmless, like the UTXO querying and DS relaying), because the support of larger blocks is really needed.

By the way why don't you stick to bitcoin core v0.4 for example? v0.11 is the v0.4 plus a series of patches on it.

They are not incompatible, XT is a drop-in replacement, totally interoperable. Increasing the max block size doesn't imply that automatically all mined blocks will be large. They will grow proportionally to bitcoin usage in the world. And when the largest part of miners will mine larger blocks, the new improved chain will take over. Simple, neat.

My point is about the number of commiters. If XT takes over there will be no Core commiters, so your 6 minus 5 equals 1 commiter.

I would not bet on it. And after all, if the Core developers leave, it means they would have been useless anyway. The world is big, someone else will take their place.

+1

The experiment doesn't depend on any single dev.

Considering the concerted effort to suppress debate about the fork, xt, blockstream and core devs, we are sailing in dangerous waters.

Hedge accordingly.

Personally I will not abandon bitcoin for BlockstreamCoin.

I actually had my reasons:

1) so that the post wouldn't be moved to the "altcoin" section, since this is a Bitcoin discussion

2) because the danger is that core developers will harden in their intention and not raise the limit, based on the position of the XT team. There are many people who want and need larger blocks but don't want to "split" the network by adopting XT. By Core increasing the block size, both these and the XT users will get what they want without a split.

This being said, from what I'm reading the so-called "Lightning" network will cause more damage to Bitcoin than the XT fork will cause. It will require new wallets etc. So in the end, if Core does not increase the size, the path to lesser damage is to go with XT. The only danger with XT are the freshly mined coins on the Core chain after the split, which technically could be zero, if people simply upgrade.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

Its not that dangerous. Dont listen to those idiots who like drama.

Since Gavin is already planning to fork only with majority of bitcoin economy, most if not all miner will choose the client version as soon as the result shows. (They got two weeks)

The rest of miners who still refuse to switch, will just cause a larger number of orphan blocks than normal. As i said it would be their losses. I dont  believe miners care as much as their return on investment.

Only idiots would actually think it will fork with 75% of miners

If anyone wants to mine coins that are not listed on global exchanges, they should look into altcoins. And belive me bitcoin exchanges dont like plan that undercut their revenue stream ( LightingNetwork and sidechains).

Unless you think majority of bitcoiners are retards with conspiracy, then yes.

We'll all be dead long before this happens so not sure why it should concern us right now. Eventually the block size will have to be increased so why not now? I think the only question is how big should the size be.

That retard couldnt even calculate the fees to begin with. As if he does not know what tx volume means

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.

Regardless. Increasing the block size limit is something that must be done sooner or later. But not much later. But i don't agree with XT. We need to do it with Bitcoin core.

Blankets like that wrap in too many of the innocents. Whose to decide what is classified as spam and what is not? Hardcoding a fee of 0.0001 would be silly. What if the price shoots to $10,000 in the course of a few days? All transactions would stop until a patch was released to allow reduced fees.

And thus the problem is right in your mindset. We don't need to do it with bitcoin core, we simply have to pick which fork we like , which one appeals to us. Guys this is not a corporation, it's a silent democracy where your vote is your node's version number. Some of us who did not like certain changes stuck to some older clients and there is even a group who are still running version 0.7

Simply put, users and service providers will ultimately decide which one has the majority, and the rest will follow. But see the devs at the top unlike average joe and jane, know that if they do not move their coins past a certain threshold, can weigh their options in the future , double spend on one chain, then continue with the other like it's just another monday.

...or maybe i just don't think switching everyone to a Alt-Coin is the way to go? XT isint exactly BTC its effectively a new coin from different devs. Its not a mind set, its a practice thing.

The fascinating about this whole ordeal is to see how much knowledge of our bitcoiners have . Frankly i feel very sad to see most of these idiots are probably here to hope for a price soar. Their lack of understanding bitcoin is absurd.

Somehow bitcoin is becoming a cult, where everyone will only agree to words of a fews, no matter what.

I see a thread of member asking the bitcoin core devs to add blocksize increase so they can use bitcoin core and not bitcoin XT. Sad isnt it? while they're given a choice they decide to ask their masters anyway.
 

How?

Seems like 3/5 developers of core dont want to increase block size for their own reasons.

I dont think 3 people should be stopping development on a technology such as bitcoin.

Hence why people can choose what they want (I vote for bigger blocks by using XT).

If the consensus stays with core then that's what the free market decides.

If the opposite is true then great the free market decided. That is the main thing that people have a choice and consensus will win out in this situation one way or the other.

No it doesn't necessarily.

You don't know the future and what bitcoin prices would be and how competitive mining would be.

Let's deal in facts and not hypotheticals.

Thanks  ;D ;D ;D

Lifting the cap on max block size would allow the bitcoin network to self regulate.

Miners would be able to determine what max block size they are willing to risk being orphaned and the probability that they are okay with. Call it SELF IMPOSED BITCOIN MINING RISK APETITE.

Some miners will pick 1 MB others 2.7 MB others 5.9 MB. But they will have the risk (the bigger the block) of being orphaned and wasting resources mining that block.

Essentially the network of miners and block sizes would be self-regulating.

Personally I support BIP100 for now to see how things goes.

I think the larger issue at hand here is how consensus is reached in order to make a change. The issue happens to be block size at the moment but the way this is handled is much more important than what is decided.

Once at least 75% of the blocks are processed by Bitcoin XT, but no earlier than January, it will upgrade to a block size of a maximum of 8Mb (and double that limit every two years). The nodes that then still run the old “Bitcoin Core” software would find themselves excluded from the system.

But there is no implementation of BIP100 for now, is there?

People should keep in mind, that running a BIP101-full-node or mining BIP101-blocks is just symbolic for now. There won't be any changes happening till January 2016.
That means plenty of time for Bitcoin Core(or even a complete other client) to implement another solution and convince people to switch to them.

This is a thing that worries me.
I see the events unfolding in this way, but it may already be too late for the core devs to fork a cap increase by jan 2016.
And that's only happening after they get flexcap checked out and decided ok/nok
Either they find a way to piggyback off the existing xt fork (at least everyone will have heard about it coming), or they will need to fork around the middle of next year which is after xt's possible trigger time.

Before xt starts mining, i'm pretty sure they will have something decided, but it might be too late.
tick tock...

I disagree.
The main players here are the miners, without miners(75%) there is no fork. It seems like they are not happy with the client-fork anyways. So, if there is a solution which made some progress in the next few months, than they might just not switch to XT and sit it out till the other solution arrives. It might be likewise with full node operators(They seem less predictable to me)
The January 2016-"deadline" just put some pressure on the other developers, who don't seem to have moved much in the last months.

The XT redditards are not realizing that the core developers want bigger blocks. Peter Wuille (sipa) actually came with a proposal called "Block size according to technological growth." [1]. Unfortunately Gavin and Mike consider that as too conservative and keep threatening the redditards that no 8X block size increase NOW equals doom and gloom. The redditards refuse to understand that this XT hard fork can do much more harm than leaving the max block size to 1MB for a while.

To all you XT guys, please please please try to understand that there is no urgency to increase the max block size and the core developers want to do this in a safe and reasonable way. You seem to see a sizeable group of important bitcoin core contributors as a malevolent group seeking to control everything, and at the same time you miss that there are 2 guys with dubious intentions that are trying to convince you to use only their code with their untested patches. XT is not only the forced block size increase, it is also another set of modifications and whatever those 2 guys want to do in the future. You're seeking to distrust a sizeable group of experienced people in order to trust only 2 people.

[1] https://gist.github.com/jl2012/8f1f4d29f1e171ed9ca3 (https://gist.github.com/jl2012/8f1f4d29f1e171ed9ca3)

It's not about block size. It's about control of the network. Block size is just the catalyst.

They have always said the 51% attack was impossible. Well. This is what one looks like.

You do realize, that one of this dubious persons is one of the biggest if not THE biggest contributor to Bitcoin. The guy Satoshi made lead on this project.
Gavin never said, not in the past and not in the present, that BitcoinXT is the only solution. He took a bold step, since the Bitcoin Core-dev team was stuck, also thanks to the veto from gmaxwell(who has obvious a conflict of interests).
On the other hand people are cheering theymos for censoring here and on reddit.

Which is proposing a dangerous controversial hard fork to push his code against the experience of most others. I heard rumours he has some links to those secret government organizations, hopefully they are wrong. I wonder why is he siding with that other guy which I read was proposing blacklists and such. The right step for him would be to come back and reach common ground with the core devs. It is not impossible.

Anyway I'm fully behind the current core developers and I think we should go with a safe and reasonable approach towards increasing the max block size.

Do you realize that proposal would give us 10Mb Blocks in 2030 ?

Its not even reasonable, its down right stupid. His 17% technological growth is no where to be found in 30 yrs of the internet infrastructure.

Instead of following someone's words blindly, do a little research yourself, you would have known the growth rate is around 44% annual .

Why almost everyone want bigger blocks? What is wrong with the actual size?

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

If by next year if we are filling 8mb blocks the miners will be very profitable because it would mean a lot more people using bitcoin and higher prices.  There is really no reason not to do it unless someone has a better way of increasing t/s.

They are trying to get ahead of the problem of scaling up bitcoin.  Next time there is bubble the transactions will spike and we will start hiting a wall.  Its better to deal with it now then wait for a crisis to hit.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.


Scaling? Increase by 8x is too much, I think.

Look at the history chart of bitcoin transaction volume and avg blocksize.

So you think its too much but you havent given any downside.

one reason is because they do not want to fork bitcoin every year in the case they want to do it more thrifty and choose, for example 2MB only

realistically speaking bitcoin has the potential to grow huge, in a short amount of time, you never know, when the fully adoption, will begin seriously 8mb would be a low value also but at least it will offer a bigger room

Not to mention we're not pushing the limit of the infrastructure. We currently have the technology (storage & bandwidth) to support this.

 

To avoid forks from happening often, I see. But why create fake nodes? (see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0) Not to hurt those XT supporters, but are you really going to fake stats just to show there are some support on your side?

LOL are you aware the fakeXTnodes campaign are created by the antiXT to discrete the stats?

Seems like you're a clueless victim they're seeking for.

This, pretty much. Are we really going to conclude that bitcoin just won't scale.....forever? 7 transactions per second, this is what we will limit ourselves to? I don't see the basis for all the opposition to increasing the block size. Take time, do it proper, make the implementation go smoothly...... but I just don't understand the opposition.

Fact is, Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay this way.

I'm for a blocksize increase, but this is not a good reason.  I appreciate his/their creation, but argument from authority is a flimsy pretense.  Bitcoin is way bigger than satoshi now.

Indeed -- this we know. However, how do we best deal with that? How do we agree on the best way to increase the limit? Are 8MB blocks really necessary at this point? (I think not)..... are blocks larger than 1MB necessary at this point? (I think so)

But as a bitcoiner who is not a developer or a miner, I don't feel I have much say....

As far as I know, no there is not. Most likely because Jeff might not proceed until support to ensure its not time wasted (of course, thats just a baseless assumption on my part).

Funny, how the XTshills always answer in this histrionic way.

The same could be said for all sides of this "argument". This type of comment is detrimental to actual discussion and contributes nothing but fan the flames.

Right, the truth can be like an accelerant.

IIRC, the consequences is appearing.
look, if we want a bigger block, you will have to pay lots of money for your hard drive.

there was no consensus for a fork, bitcoin xt took a dictatorial approach.

Bitcoin xt centralizes bitcoin since it makes it very expensive to run a full node, and eliminates miners fees therefore as block halves so does the security.

Also Bitcoin Xt seems to cripple tor nodes, and has a list of banned ip addresses, essentially a from of censorship.
 
In the bitcoin world decentralization is your friend and goes with the spirit of Satoshi.

Lets stay with bitcoin core, the reckless approach taken by bitcoin xt is causing the price to collapse.

Aahh damn. This whole thing is getting really annoying.
Bigger Blocks are inevitable.That is what many think and also want. But most of us don't want a fork the way XT is doing it.
This I can totally accept and agree.
As I said several times keeping the Blocksize limit at 1MB is wrong!
So raise the fucking limit at core to 2MB or 4MB and we should have more time for other as well needed solutions and implementations like sidechains and LN. WE WILL NEED BOTH (bigger blocks and offchain solutions) and maybe more we don't know yet!!

Stop that stupid trench warfare because this is what is affecting ALL OF US!God damn Egos!!

Holy mother of monkey milk, someone gets it.

At this point I think it should be obvious that kicking the can down the road IS a sensible thing to do.
It could be an safe (almost insignificant) block cap increase, and would offer hope for the majority who want bigger blocks but don't want the contentious fork.

I disagree, I think that not increasing the block size will centralize Bitcoin. Also the opposite is true in terms of it being a dictatorial approach. If we think that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, 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 can hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin so decentralized. I would prefer seeing an increased block size within Bitcoin core, but I do not think that will happen I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. That is why we must hard fork away from Core if we want bigger blocks.

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.

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)

Bingo. The block size issue is just being used to force Hearn's vision of bitcoin on the community without us realizing it.


Indeed. The block size issue is actually not very significant, and could be handled without all this drama. We don't need 20MB blocks, we don't need to figure out the absolute best way to implement dynamically adjusting blocks yet. We just need to scale to current needs, and go from there. If we can't do that, at least in the interim..... I'm really sad for this community.

I'm really sad for this community too, but only because you'll believe anything turtlehurricane tells you, even when it's complete bullshit.  Keep blindly buying into the fear campaign.  It's not like you should stop to question it or anything.   ::)

lmao,

Your false statements have been proven wrong over and over again, but still you keep on going with them.

It does give a hook for certain individual to get a form of control and power over the network which is exactly what its not supposed to be. A centralized authority over a decentralized system kind of beat the purpose.

A feature where the network can vote to reduce priority temporarily for an ip range could work.

Are you aware that you can turn this featurr of completely and it does not affect the blockchain at all?

Do you know many wallet clients have their own rules for peer connection? Thats essentially the voting system you're looking for.

I think we're done with this FUD....

No FUD here. Just the fact on the effect of that code if its put in. And as its said right there on the code commenting, there's a better way to do it. Check the code yourself, this wouldn't let the end user tick a box and make it all disappear.

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I agree. Kick the can down the road, TBH. See how adoption plays out, and develop a more robust plan for dynamically adjusting block size. For now, 3-4MB is more than enough. No need to build Rome in a day here.

That's partly what pisses me off about XT -- so much fear being pushed on people. Unnecessary fear. "We have to do this YESTERDAY!!!111!!1111"

IMO, getting new developers behind core in a democratic fashion every so often should be our main concern. Having this much power in such few hands is not ideal. Its cause for concern in regards to safety, responsability, consensus and corruption.

The fact that they won't belies their "alterior" motives.

I would actually support Core again if they did that, but they have not done that and I do not believe they will. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue. The ability to hard fork is the greatest expression of the freedom and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin protocol. If we did not have this ability the Core developers would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin. It would be wrong if these five people had such power over Bitcoin something that is intended to be decentralized and trustless, I refuse to trust these people with such power. We the people are free to choose what path the development of Bitcoin will take, that is part of the reason why I support a hard fork.

Even a 2MB cap would stiff xt imho.
Adam tweeted he was in favor of 2MB as 'soon as safely possible', but wanted to analyze flexcap first coz it's better.
I think something will come along soonish, especially if xt gets traction.

You can't change the max block size without a hardfork anyway. It's not like you are tweaking a knob. Perhaps you are confusing the software fork with the blockchain hard fork.

Please go ahead with the XT-CIAcoin and suffer the consequences. You are free to do so :)

I do realize that any increase to the block size requires a hard fork, I think that Core will never increase the block size so therefore supporting a hard fork is de facto not supporting Core. I see a lot of ad hominem attacks and wild conspiracy theory against XT instead of having solid arguments. Can you explain to me how XT is a CIA coin?

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses

This sounds pretty CIA to me. And don't get me wrong, I want bigger blocks and I was support XT until I realized there is a lot of fishy things going on here, can't trust that at all, so I will stay with Core for sure. We have still a long way to get near 1MB blocks limit, we are at the half at best, I dont see the big necessity for big blocks NOW.

It was growing and even full for awhile. Demand for bitcoins is shrinking with the price. So as long as the price keeps dropping, there really is no need to bother doing anything at all with Bitcoin.

As far as I understand it that article is a very bad journalism. Since Peter Todd has already come forward and said that he was wrong about IP's being leaked, not that it even matters since Bitcoin is not anonymous in that way anyway. What you are pointing towards is a DDOS prevention code, this is a good thing. You can still connect through Tor and there is an option to just turn that feature off. It is not a part of the fundamental protocol unlike the block size itself, so therefore it is peoples free choice whether to use that feature or not. If the network is subjected to a DDOS attack by the CIA for example then we could use this code to prioritize connections so that we can still connect to the Bitcoin network.

Therefore calling XT a CIA coin just because of this is hyperbole and not constructive towards good argumentation. I would expect a "fed" or "gov" coin to not have a limited supply and be controlled by a center of power. This is definitely not the case with XT.

Trying to do a hard fork when we need it will be to late, it would be chaotic and people might lose money, that is why it is better to implement increased block sizes before we need them, before it is to late. We should have started this even earlier then we are now IMHO.

Why do you think we need to raise the fee to keep the miner payment high? Will you raise the fee in order to compensate the block halving too? That would be instant dead to bitcoin.

It simply can't be done.

And do you realize that the bitcoin network has way too much hashpower? That shows that the rewards are very high. In fact a study showed that only one bitcoin transaction nowadays eats as much electricity as one average US-Household uses a whole day. We have so much hashpower that we could handle hundred times more transactions and the bitcon network would still be safe.

We don't need to raise the fees! Miners had to switch off hardware all the time. Otherwise they would still mine with CPU and GPU. When the rewards get lower then this would be actually better for bitcoin.

Unfortunately the one that decide everything are the miners. I wonder if they decide to their own good in the short term or in the long term.

No? Why do you think so? Why should there somehow suddenly full 8 Megabyte blocks happen. Where should all these transactions come from? The 8MB are the maximum only. And it will take a lot of time until we naturally reach that limit. And you know harddrive space is growing constantly each year.

There simply will be no problem.