Bitcoin Forum

I have boght BTC thinking it will keep his value and will be secured over time.
I don't care if 75% of miners want to exchange my BTC with worthless XBTC coins
XBTC doubles block size every 2 years not leaving room for transaction fees market (same effect as doubling the 21 mil coins every 2 years)
BTC 21 mil cap and BTC block size need to be fixed numbers

Since Bitcoin XT attack it's in progress the price will only go down and i don't think the attackers will give up till they fork the network.

Do you think after the fork mass adoption will happen ??

If my BTC get's turned into XBTC the only solution i see is to use my XBTC to pay for transaction fees while sending mass comercial messages over to every XBTC active address i can harvest.

Since XBTC has no transaction fee market i'm expecting the transactions to be quite cheap so i can target many addresses and even turn a profit

What do you guys think ?

I don't see how the block size increase would end transaction fees. First of all, miners have the power to accept transactions based on fees, no matter what the block size limit. Second, if you want Bitcoin to grow more mainstream, you'll want more capacity for transactions per second, and hence larger blocks.

However, there are good reasons to limit the block size, and the various plans to increase it are very moderate and controlled. BIP 101 suggests an eightfold increase for starters, and then doubling annually. If you want Bitcoin to go mainstream, you'll probably want more than 8x increase from current usage.

Please note, I'm only talking about block size limit, and not the XT client. If we're deciding on the future of Bitcoin, it's much better to handle one well-defined issue at a time, rather than shove a bunch of shady features down our throats.

I think you should start doing minimum research before investing in anything.

You do realise that initially there was no block size cap? You know that 1mb was temporary solution? Are you aware that both XT and Core devs see the need of lifting the 1mb?

Off course you don't.

Are You Kidding Me?

Why someone would pay higher transaction fee if the supply (block size) it's larger then the demand (active transactions)

For XT client will get to 8G in about 30 years

If we agree on a larger block size it should be fixed not increasing exponential. And we should also consider the transaction fees market to prevent spam

Best Regards

No, there will be no mass adoption just due to fork , if it ever happens anyways.
No, your btc won't be "converted to anything". If blockchain splits, you can load wallet to both clients and have same number of both funds. i.e. you have 10 btc now, you will have 10 btc on core
version of blockchain, and 10 on xt version.
Who said that xbtc  would have "no fee's" ?

Please read my post again, especially the note where miners can still decide whether or not to accept transactions. This is how Bitcoin is working already.

If your supply is higher than demand, it doesn't mean you give everything away for free, you can still set your price.

I should also mention that BIP 101 allows for miners to set soft limits on the blocksize, i.e. smaller than the hard limit of 1 MB/ 8MB / 8GB or whatever.

If you want a fixed blocksize limit shouldn't it be what satoshi originally implemented?  Wasn't it 8 or 32mb?

Dude, if the fork happens, it's because we chose to!

We are the 'attack'!

No recover is needed!

I know that initially there was no block size cap. I read this argument countless times. But what was the value of this technology when there was no block size cap ?


As a bitcoin entusiast i do want to see mass adoption and i realize that 1M it's quite small for that.
But we can change it after we experiment with the fee market. After the 21 mil coins have been mined the fees market it's the only thing that will suport the security of the network.


But as an investor i don't care about mass adoption. As an investor i want to see BTC grow under it's curent limits (21 mil coints and 1M blocksize)


Best Regards

Why?

You've had it pointed out to you that miners can choose what they want to charge to accept transactions, whatever the block size.

I think it's better 8 or 32mb then exponential blocksize increase.

The size it's 1m now and that's what my personal preference is.
The fact that satoshi originally implemented 8 or 32 it's not an argument. What if he originally wanted 42 mil coins .... should we change that now ?

You have a valid argument.
Still triyng to grasp this concept

As both, an enthusiast and investor you want value to increase. But it won't increase if there's no adoption and practical usage. And the adoption will be crippled if tx fees are too high and capacity of tx per sec is too low.
With mass adoption, more transactions with affordable and predictable fees will provide much higher reward for miners than higher fees in small number of txs.

That was the plan from the start.

Edit: removed one line that didn't make sense (misread quoted post)

Which one sounds more attractive to both users and miners:

1. 100000 transactions in a block, each paying .0001 as a fee.  (roughly 50MB blocks)
2. 1800 transactions in a block, each paying .005

Now before you answer that, imagine that the price of BTC has increased due to increased adoption(the market cap is likely going to need to increase substantially to handle additional commerce, right now there are mid cap companies with larger), let's say to $10000 each.

Now if you're using lightning/sidechains/etc you can still transact cheaply and quickly for most day to day activities.  But let's say that your transaction isn't something that you want "on the books", most likely due to an oppressive government.  Whether it's drugs or literary material, there's a government somewhere with the will to stop it.  Is that worth a dollar(.0001)?  Probably.  Is it worth $50?  Maybe not.

Increasing blocksize is going to ensure that users can still afford to transact directly on the blockchain without needing to trust an intermediary, not prevent it.

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

Ah .... You pretended to trick us into another centralization argument.

Nice one OP some members got tricked to join this thread.

as you seem to know bitcoin quite well i bet you know what "headers first" mean?

But the block reward is going to diminish and internet connections will continue to improve, making that less relevant as time goes on(which is why we need a schedule or dynamic mechanism for block scaling, not a one time increase such as BIP102).  Not to mention that the majority of the network is doing SPV mining even today with 1MB blocks.

Transaction fees have to be enough to sustain the security of the network.  And that means bigger blocks.

Don't want to trick anyone into anything
Just want to understand what is happening

See my last two replies, I'm interested to hear what you think after considering them.

Large blocks are useless if they end up getting orphaned and the potential fees vanish into thin air. Miners will keep adding transactions to their blocks up to the point where their orphan rate becomes unacceptable. This depends amongst other things on the size of the blocks other miners are building.

bip100 isnt a one time increase. it doubles every two years.
personally i'd prefer unlimited blocksize, because i think that miners (means pools) are not dumb and can decide whats best.

with the existing mining overlay network which supports headers first block transmit time is not a big issue any more

It was not my intention to learn so much about how bitcoin works

what do you mean by "headers first" ?

I understand headers are downloaded first when downloading the blockchain
but is "headers first" alo when broadcasting a new found block ??

Best Regards

PS: sorry for stupid questions and for not documenting myself first on these technical aspects

You're correct, I got it mixed up.  BIP102 was what I should have said.  I edited my post.

Not to be an ass, but if you don't want to learn how things work why do you feel like you should have an opinion on them?  That's like me saying that I have a solution for the conflict in the middle east but I'm not actually going to learn anything about what's already going on today.

Yes, that's what I referred to as SPV mining.  Miners grab the header and start working on the next block immediately.  Then they download/validate the block in parallel with the mining effort that includes that header.  If it's invalid then they discard and go back to working on the previous one.  Most of the time it's valid and this saves a few valuable seconds, occasionally it could bite you.

Oh right, you dont know, but you're so set on your decision and even speak up about your "uninformed" opinion.

We can waste all our time arguing with you, or we can just answer questions so you can be informed.

Pick one.

I'm set on my decision to protect my investment

Sorry for being "uninformed" but i did not know that i need to learn so much to protect my investment. Does learning time add to my BTC portofolio ?  :)

I understand how SPV mining can be a good thing but someone please explain this alert

https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining (https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining)

Has this situation been resolved ?

imho as an investor just make sure you own the private keys for your coins and see what happens.
in case of a fork you have btc and xt coins: whichever chain wins will be bitcoin afterwards.

you dont protect your investment by joining btct and add to this political and community dividing debate (i only joined that debate because i saw so much fud against XT; imho relaxing and waiting is the best strategy here).

You mean exactly the way it is now, and exactly the way it has always been?  We've never had the transactions eligible for inclusion in a block be artificially limited by the block size cap.  Keeping the stopgap 1 MB limit will change this so that very soon we WILL begin running into this block.

HODL on to core! HOOOOOOOODL

Very constructive.  Thanks for your input.

I'm holding on to my bitcoin core node and i will always run the true core and mine on it!
is that better?

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.
• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.
• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is not OK.
• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is OK.

Thus, one is advised to run BitcoinXT.

Quick ELI5:

Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.

Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other.


there is no attach OP, just an option.

You still sound like a zealot.

Why don't you back your arguments with logic and reasoning instead of sounding like it's a religious decision?

True coin value?  You sound like a religious nutbag too.

Can we not have a rational discussion about this?

Apparently you can't fucking read. I've giving you clear logic! I opened a fucking thread about it. Try reading it.

I did read it.  75% of the network IS consensus.  Your very statement is fallacious.

Fine! Not ture coin... how about... OC! Original Coin.

I will not run XT. I've explained why and what I think will happen in other threads, but I guess can't copy and paste it here. Some guys are getting butt-hurt that i'm doing that.

Let me show you how this logic thing works.


So prove him wrong.  Your statement did nothing of the sort.  I'll give you something to chew on though, if the network forks that means that 75% was on board with it.  If you're running XT you're going to be mining on the longest fork.  So yeah, you are fine if we fork and you're running XT.


Again, you did nothing to disprove his statement.  Textbook ad-hominem argument.


Any facts to back this one up?  Nope, rampant speculation.  I'll show you again how this works.  QT will not be on the longest chain because it will discard what are now considered to be valid blocks by the network(aka, the majority).  Do you understand what distributed consensus means?  I'll give you a hint, it's what the entire bitcoin network is built on.


At least you got one out of four, good job,