Bitcoin Forum

This video ------> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWhShzzELg  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Okay I'm officially on board with Gavin and Hearn and Bitcoin XT after watching this video ----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w

It is quite clear that there is not conflict of interest at all for all of the co-founders of blockstream... It is clear why they want 1 mb right?

An Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy with which I refuse to base my conclusions upon. It's nice the you list the names and companies of people that disagree with the argument for increased block sizes, but you have presented no actual argument and so have provided no relevant information on which to derive a conclusion on the matter as a list of names of people who disagree is no argument  for or against block size increase.

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

It appears to me that the data presented (name, employer, vote) is a very strong argument about motives. 

It would be rather incredible if the correlation between people drawing paychecks from Blockstream and people in favor of no maximum block size increase were a coincidence.

Hmmm, Blockstream intends to set up a transaction processing network to mediate people's transactions and use the bitcoin block chain for a settlement network only.  A plan which won't work all that well if people can just use the block chain themselves.  How could people be prevented from just using the block chain themselves?  Hmmmmmm...... 

Conflict of interest much?  Nawww, couldn't be.  But isn't it weird how the every last dev who sees an increase in the maximum block size as a good thing is NOT getting paychecks from Blockstream?

That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this:
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
This whole situation is just too fishy.

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

fixed

The main alternatives to increasing the block size would be a more radical redo of the blockchain system - a proposal for something called the Bitcoin Lightning Network has gotten the most attention - or simply waiting around and seeing how the system organically adjusts to hitting its capacity limits.

It's not like they jumped with XT idea out of the blue. There was an extensive debate but it was going nowhere. Some people don't see 1mb as a problem at all, some see it as a problem but hope lighting network/side chains will provide solution etc.

Waiting for the full blocks to start thinking about solutions doesn't make any sense, it'll probably get more messy than it is now.

So instead of engaging in pointless discussions, repeating the same arguments over again, they decide to 'do something' and allowed people to vote (by switching to XT or staying with Core).

Was it the right move? I don't know.

They do it now because they want to be ahead of the problem instead of it becoming a problem... Yhrre is nothing fishy about the timing, just common sense.

I believe we need bigger blocks, it is the only way to become ready for the future, and many more users of bitcoin.

I was in the same boat, but all of the name calling I see coming from those against the bigger blocks, all the political spin (such as the constant "XT is an altcoin" BS), and all of the Orwellian "not censorship" manipulation (I don't even use Reddit, but it's also on bitcoin.org and this forum) were really grating my nerves.  I finally couldn't stand it anymore and replaced Core with XT.  It was really difficult for me to do because I'm flat out against many of Mike Hearn's ideas, but I realized that even if XT wins the blocksize battle, Core will be modified to support larger blocks (as it likely will before it comes to that), so I can switch back to Core at that point and not be a part of any other nonsense that might come from XT.  The fact that I can switch back is what really relaxed me.

Already have there been dubious code segments detected in XT's code base. XT is a trojan horse that plans to base it's hostile takeover of Bitcoin on manipulating the notoriously stupid masses.

I for one will dump ALL my Bitcoins immediately on the XT chain, should it ever be tradeable, which will certainly not be without effect. Bitcoin simply cannot be in control of two people with very questionable motives and tactics. It is a tool of the cypherpunks

Quote for note of a XT bashers.

Amazing stuff comes from XT basher so far.
Most of them are twisted retard

Proof ? :

I am not a specialist so my question can seem strange or to simple to have answer. But if everyone can, please answer me. What the difference between 8mb, 2mb and 1mb? What this comport for bitcoin and what are the bad things if from 1mb goes to 2mb or even 8mb. As I know everything will be more smoothly if the amount will go 8mb. Why not then 8mb? What is this discord? Why this discord?

Actually, Pieter proposed an excellent suggestion (https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6) to slowly and moderately increase the block size limit. I think this would be a wise middle ground, hopefully something that all devs are willing to consider as a reasonable compromise.

Even if they think it's not perfect, it's not that dramatic. And it's most definitely way better to have a least a unanimous decision for the time being, rather than strictly holding on to each own's position and risking Bitcoin to be split up in Core and XT (which is devastating).

Seriously... Nobody can claim that Pieter's proposal of growing by 2^1/16 (≈ 4.4%) every 2²³ seconds (≈ 97 days), or about 17% per year, is in any way ridiculous or damaging or shortsighted.

Adam Back on reddit 2 days ago:


https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us (https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us)

This is just false. 8GB would take 20 years. Hell, 10 years ago I was on dial up and now on fibre.

Adam Back wants to derail natural scaling because it seriously affects the goals of Blockstream (having user transactions taking place on top of bitcoin through their "payment hubs".)

Wow.
So translation: Bitcoin Core is dead. We are voting for XT or Blockstream.

The censorship is on both sides... look at the self-moderation threads on the subject on this forum, where posts are being deleted. I respect your decision, but I think it might be a mistake to follow that route.

Mike have included code into his submission to invade your privacy and to ban people from using Bitcoin, under the auspice of protecting the network. He managed to devide the community and spread panic amoungst the

investors and merchants.

He also included code within the change, to make things easier for his Lightning nework to succeed. {Self interest} I cannot agree on that kind of tactics and principles.    

This not my point. OP wrote that Adam is only for 1MB limit. That is not true. He also agrees to bigger blocks. But way more conservative.
And I want to point out that I am pro bigger blocks as well.
I'm not on any side.
Bigger blocks yes.4MB or 8MB I don't care. But not the way XT is pushing it.

how would you do this change?
imho letting miners decide what protocol changes are bitcoin is how it was designed in the first place.

Bump, no one pushes shit, Its the consensus of the bitcoin network that decide to fork or not.

8MB is still a very random figure to drop over there. Sure one could think the blockstream guys have an agenda but im really a lot more scared about the code that Mike&Hearn are trying to push with the excuse of the blocksize increase.

The reality is that if you are running a full node or if you are a miner you have to choose sides. Since just like in a democracy there is no such thing as a neutral position. Not voting in a democracy also has consequences. In the case of bitcoin if you are running a full node or mining, not adopting XT can be counted as a vote for Core. That is why we must choose between these two extremes. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

i didnt see anything really bad there. most of the rumurs are just fud.
atm only miners need to do anything (if they want to)

everybody else should just make sure that their bitcoins belongs to them (eg they own the private keys) so they can decide - after the fork - which chain is best.

no code is run with owning private keys...
no one forces you to run bitcoin core / xt (even if you want to be on that chain)

anything else is FUD.

this is messed up.  is is what Is meant by block stream finding a way to incentivize/monetize core development?? if so, that's whack.

A most serious and important question is: what is blockstream's business model?  How do they and will they generate revenue ?

Well the thing is most people are clueless about the code that is underneath the excuse of the blocksize increase. They thing XT = bigger blocks and thats all but thats not all. Some people here care about things beyond a good price.

no code is run with owning private keys...
no one forces you to run bitcoin core / xt (even if you want to be on that chain)
[/quote]

Assuming I put my bitcoin under private key.... and things fork into 2 ongoing paths.  My bitcoin is safe on either path I choose I understand, but.....

1) after I do choose a path, say, running my bitcoin through an XT based Exchange - is it then locked into that choice/path forever, and unable to go back to the Core Chain?

2) If XT were to be the predominant Chain, is there any possibility that my pre-cached Bitcoin could be made unwelcome in the new Fiat/XT Chain?  In no way am I suggesting this would be immediate, or even within a year, but in the event I just had my Bitcoin cached privately under key for a long time - could a "backtrace" occur that identified all Bitcoin be identified as "Pre-Fork at some point - and then be blocked.   Hypothetically for example - could any huge Bitcoin trove such as the Satoshi trove be blocked out in an attempt to do preemptive "damage control" to a potential negative market event - such as a mass dumping.  Because if I am the fiat guys and this goes mainstream, that will be something I am looking to counter.  So I am curious as to how XT may allow, or directly set up future code to allow this.  After all pyramids start one block and layer at a time, and are built upon long before the final and ultimate design is apparent.

I dont want to convince or force opinion on you but have some time to read about Blockstream you will see the shocking how its all related.

eg me ;)
but people must learn the differences between consensus-relevant changes, client-code and private keys.

if you think xt harms your privacy (i dont) use it without the other patches (means only with bigger block patch) OR use another client. its that simple

Although I partly disagree with what this cartoon implies, I do believe it illustrates the potential conflict of interest rather well:

https://i.imgur.com/DF17gFE.jpg?1

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bpese/blocking_the_stream_the_blocksize_limit_debate_in/


My thoughts: many of the 1-MB supporters convinced themselves long ago that Bitcoin "couldn't scale" and would thus only serve as a settlement back-bone.  Businesses were built based on this assumption.  These people view themselves as unbiased and objective engineers (and they usually are); however they are presently struggling with cognitive dissonance as they come around to the reality that they were (at least to a certain extent) wrong.  This also explains the recent strange behaviour of certain 1-MB supporters such as censoring nearly all pro-increase debate from /r/bitcoin, banning a large portion of the community from commenting, and locking one of the most popular threads on this forum (the "Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP" thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12173522#msg12173522)).  

People need to calm down, and start working on solutions. No-one should be treating each other as enemies, we all want Bitcoin to succeed.

What makes me always calm is that even there is a fork, you would always be able to spend pre-fork coins on both chains  ;D

At this stage, talk does not mean anything, if anyone really want to support XT, they have to purchase enough hash power to let that side grow to 75%

It is kind of like choosing to get new tires for you car when the tread wears and it becomes clear that they will only last maybe a few more months before they go flat… opposed to waiting until your tires explode on the high way to get new tires.

Fixing the problem before it happens avoids a possible accident on the highway, getting stranded on the side of the road, paying for a tow truck or road side assistance, etc. It is much more intelligent to change the tires before they go. The same logic applies to why the block size should be increased before we see 8 hour transactions times and huge fees because the small blocks cannot handle the traffic.

Also, Bitcoin XT is not being forced upon us. If it doesn't get 75% of the network supporting it, it won't happen. This not forced anymore than a vote for a president having to be 51% forces the president on us. 75% agreement is way more than it takes to elect the leader of the United States, and so I feel it is a fair way to ensure consensus before implementing it.

The trouble is that it does not illustrate the potential conflict of interest almost at all.  As far as I can tell, Blockstream can only make money by acting in a consulting capacity to people who wish to make a sidechain.

A sidechain, since it is pegged to Bitcoin, cannot really make a lot of money unless the operator participates in fraud, and they would not be able to retain and share the loot with Blockstream because if Blockstream participated it would totally and instantaneously ruin their whole business model (as I understand/infer it.)

Sidechains themselves offer a new revenue stream to the Bitcoin ecosystem.  Consider the discounts that vendors will offer for use of their branded gift cards and what-not.  This demonstrates that there is money to be had there, and if the vendor could have their own currency rather than a piss-ant gift card or credit card that is much more powerful.  With a robust two-way peg, Bitcoin value becomes equal to or (and) greater than the sum total of the value of all sidechains backed by it.

Last I heard, Blockstream plans to release at least their basic implementation framework as open-source for anyone to use.  They could only remain competitive in the space if their implementation were better and/or more trusted than others.  This might be one reason that they retained many of the most productive and well respected persons from the Bitcoin development community.

The small blocksize issue is something of a cart vs. horse thing.  Since I became involved I saw the small data-rate and high latency aspects of Bitcoin as being key to it's robustness in the face of attacks (of the type we've not yet seen.)  Were I a developer in the sphere I would have been putting a lot of focus on how to scale Bitcoin without losing this key aspect (and I have even while I've not worked on development.)  I can easily see how the devs who are on 'my side' would be group under Blockstream because the focus is on security which happens to be associated with data rate.  So, the 1MB thing was the 'cause' of Blockstream and not the 'effect' I guess one could say.  I'm sure they find they, like everyone else, finds the limitation to be a regrettable nuisance.  Unlike some others, however, they understand the ramifications.  They probably just feel that the fairly cutting-edge crypto work that they are undertaking is the most productive and interesting way to deal with the reality without killing Bitcoin, and potentially lucrative as well.

---

The graphic could also be improved by making a very large spill-way with several giant fish sucking up all the flow.  They would be labeled Google, Facebook, etc.  Also their should be cops riding on top of those fish labeled 'government regulators'.

This is more important than ever. And it's the first I've read this comment. Very important what you say onemorexmr - if you own Bitcoin, you better have your private keys when this goes down.

There'll probably be some exchanges that try to take payments in transactions good on both chains and then craft transactions valid only on one chain or the other when making payments, hoping to double spend. 

I'm guessing that the window within which this sort of shenanigans are possible will probably close within 24 hours or less when the losing chain ceases to exist.  But if you're concerned about it, or in the odd scenario that maybe it doesn't cease to exist that fast, you can disallow that kind of crap by just not giving them payments good on both chains.

With a bit of deliberate care you can "beat them to the punch" and craft a payment to the exchange that is only good on one of the two block chains - say by including a bit of "dust" from a mining output you got post-fork, or a bit of "dust" you got from one of those very same exchanges that are making payments good only on one chain, or something.  And that'll leave them no room to play silly buggers with the other-chain image of your coins because they won't have the other-chain image of your coins - you will.


XT is absolutely no different from the current protocol in any way that would facilitate that kind of crap.  That scenario would be every bit as big a failure-and-disaster in an XT world as it would in a non-XT world.

As always, people are spreading false information in regards to this debate. How about you guys stop this, else we will never leave this vicious circle?

1) First learn how to properly spell out the name of the person which is Pieter Wuille.
2) He is not for 1 MB blocks.
3) He proposed a 17.7% yearly growth rate  (https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6).

His proposal is a bit too conservative if we start with 1 MB blocks.

---

---

Stop diverting the argument. His claim is that Pieter supports only 1 MB blocks is false. End of story.

Starting in 2017.  Just enough for Blockstream to roll out their products and for us to hit the wall.  Anyway it won't be adopted.

Corrected for you, still freaky for me.

I think, we can divide it into people, who want an increase asap(the time for businesses to upgrade) and people who are saying, that they want it later.
The problem about "later" is that you can often translate it into "never"(but keep the hope up)

As I said many times already:
I don't care about endless discussions(which were there long before I joined Bitcoin), I care about code. So, when there is another BIP coded into a client, I can actually install on my PC, than I will re-evaluate, what I want to support. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

I'm not really keeping up because I figure I can just wait for the dust to settle, but in another thread, I read at least one person indicate that XT includes BIP101.  A version of XT that supports increased block sizes was definitely released, but I don't know if it's actually BIP101.  Do you?

No need to tell anything else. Don't use Blockstream  EVER

Yes, BitcoinXT is the only client that has a BIP (BIP101) implemented. So, if you want bigger blocks, that is currently your only choice.