Bitcoin Forum

Increase the BlockSize on Core.

It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!

But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.

As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.

Well, conspiracy aside. Gradually increasing the block size limit on demand/need of bitcoin core would certainly keep the sheep mass from adopting XT without understanding that it comes with code commits not related to the block size limit.

OP is 100% right.  We just need someone to create a bigger block fork of core ...cough cough Garzik cough cough.  and there you go.

Another XT thread. Why keep this up?
The more a few people push this the more its going to smell.
Block size is no reason to support XT. The more a salesman pushes the more reason to walk away.

There is no difference for the XT or core being increased blocksize! The debate is to focu on the increase of blocksize.

XT has gained the consensus from the majority! What is the point of finding counter arguments to be against the public?

XT has not gained consensus from the majority, Xt has maybe 14%.

XT is not just a block size increase but is also an implementation of other features, this is why I would prefer a block size increase on Core. I want the block size increase, I do not want Hearn's added features, and I want consensus.

I believe we have probably 90% consensus for a block size increase on Core, the problem is that much of the opposition 10% is the Core developers themselves. (I hear they think BlockStream will do well...)

What consensus? You mean the 400 nodes running less than 1% of the total hashrate? XT is a sham, people don't actually support it

OP doesn't support XT.  I guess you didn't read it carefully.
that's why more discussion is good.

maybe op really hates on xt lol
they increase block size for the future
want to see where this is going :)

If XT didnt include other unrelated code and simply implemented the block size, i wouldn't really have as much problem with it as i have now.
Care to read this up? https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

We don't need or want XT, but we need the block size increase. Adopt BIP 101, but not XT.

Read his other threads and come back and tell me that. ;D

Well i went over it and it seem he's bashing anti-XT FUDer/sheep's way of being against XT without any logical evidence. That doesn't make him Pro-XT. But i can't say i went through pages of the thing. ^_^"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158066.msg12215618#msg12215618

Wanted to be on this list if I recall correctly.On my cell, otherwise I would have linked properly.

If you guys have problems with bitcoin you should go for an altcoin ... wait, you do that already.
No, seriously. Instead of bitching create a new genesisblock and fork off. Could be done immediately. There are even coins launched with bigger blocks already. Go buy them.

The part I put in bold is absolutely asinine. How do you have sidechains if Bitcoin fails  ::)

It's not a conspiracy, didn't core devs propose BIP 101 as a temporary solution? 

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.


We can talk about it in 100 years okay? Honestly bitcoin wont survive if it can't get more than 3 tx per second lonnng before then. Its true its not an immediate need. The stress test we had recently just prove we will need it. Not now, indeed. But soonTM.

All we need is as Andreas Antonopoulos said, "one Bitcoin documentary to run on national television in China" to get a huge spike in new users. Think about what would happen if another country like Greece or Cyprus has banks shutting down again. Think about if the us dollar collapses.

Any event like this requires larger block sizes than we currently have unless you want to see a backlog of transactions, transactions that aren't making into the block chain, 8+ hour transactions times, huge fees, etc. If we do not prepare now for such an event, we are doing HARM to Bitcoin. Therefore, your strong disagreement with a block size increase is a direct threat against bitcoin's success.

Pieter Wuille, one of Core developer thinks Andresen's 8MB block size is much too progressive. Based on research by Blockstream colleague Rusty Russell, Pieter Wuille believes average internet connection speed will not be able to keep up with Andresen’s proposal. Pieter Wuille has, therefore, proposed to increase the block size limit by 17.7 percent per year starting in 2017, which he formalized in BIP103.

But most of the Bitcoin Community want to make any changes can made to Bitcoin Core only. Forks from other than Core may made Bitcoin into an Alt Coin.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Oh? Whats this then?;
configure.ac   Introduce the beginnings of anti-DoS resource scheduling.   17 days ago

You make a good point, but at this point I feel like there's already too many large companies making their own hardware, and not many other people are able to mine at all.

OMG another bunch of Dictators telling the minority we are not important.

Bitcoin is NOT a Democrazy, Get over it losers. That's why I like it.

If 5% of Bitcoiners are able to keep Bitcoin the way it is and tell the 95% to jump off a cliff, I for one will be rejoicing that the Dictator types who keep crowing about "Consensus" have finally had there asses handed to them.

I hope they all keep banging their heads against this brick wall long enough for the minority to find a way to cut all their heads off.

They should go and crawl back their "Government" and cry... "MOOOOOOOOMMMMMM, the minority won't let us take over Bitcoin... MooooooOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!"

Has any of the core developers recently addressed a possible compromise (besides Jeff) to the block size limit issue?

If so please link me to those quotes/posts of them.

You presume to dictate to Core (under duress, no less) what is their ideal block size.  Yet you ignore the repercussions of applied antifragility.

GLWT.  You gonna get rekt son.   :D

Your supposed consensus is a paper lolcow.  And it has been falling apart since the moment it was asserted.   8)

Your signature calls to "protect bitcoin until real technical consensus is formed about the block size." that is exactly what I am calling for. I am not dictating to Core what the ideal block size should be, I am just saying the Core developers needs to making a fucking move already. If you don't want XT, somebody needs to slap these dudes in the head and get them to increase the damn block size. Get them moving. I literally do not care what the size is, just DO IT!!

Otherwise I am in support of XT. I am not in support of a Core that does nothing but shill for BlockStream as we are heading for a shere cliff.. I project a large and sudden influx of new bitcoin users arriving unexpectedly in our near future. Core that sits on there hands and does nothing to prepare is more dangerous than anything you project onto XT.

They have made moves, in the form of BIPs 100-104 and Lightning/Sidechains/Treechains.  Project Apollo was not built in a day.  We need to listen to the engineer and researcher Dilberts and Wallys, not the pointy-haired/headed bosses.  Or this (https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/634131738063581184) might happen again.


Core dev dudes have no power to force Bitcoin's multi-year, multi-billion-dollar socioeconomic majority to do anything.  Especially not a contentious (ie potentially disastrous) hard fork (ie catastrophic consensus failure).


Ah yes, the contemporary classic 'Zomg, Bitcoin WILL LITERALLY DIEEE if it does not immediately conform to my preferences' conceit.   ::)

Please, fuck off back to /r/bitcoin_unsensored, or /v/bitcoinxt, or whatever vapid social media site you prefer.

These "anonymous" stress tests means f$%^% and should rather be seen as a attack on Bitcoin, not a testing method to the benefit of Bitcoin.

The previous "testing" just hiked up the transaction fee's and proven nothing. Who benefited from that?

We saw that in theory Bitcoin can survive {with a backlog} on 200 tps ....And we are not anywhere near to that under normal circumstances, when there are no testing being done.  :o

Relax, the stress tests backfired, showing Bitcoin will indeed work the way it was designed to (ie under full load, with no actual congestion).

All it took was a few more sprinklings of crypto-magic in the forms of RBF, smart-wallets, less dumb pools/mines, etc.   :)

Great! Won't be easy to counter for the conspiracy fudsters, censors and alikes. What shall they whine about now?

Yeah, those hostile actors are, um, already in charge of Bitcoin development  :o

XT is the default now and you have to deal with that. Just wait around and do nothing, do not support an increase in the block size on core, spend all your time and energy bashing XT, then watch when the day comes when we get 2 million new users in a week as the network panics into a 75% majority voting for XT, also known as THE ONLY REALISTIC WAY TO INCREASE THE BLOCK SIZE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE!!!

A vote for no block size increase on Core is a vote for Bitcoin XT.


This forum is the vapid social media site I come from and prefer thank you.

Not according to https://github.com/bitcoin it isn't.

Yawn...nap time.  Wake me up when laanwj authors an XT master!   ::)

Good luck to you sir, I wish you the best with all of that. May the consensus be with you.  ;D ;D ;D

Bitcoin's multi-billion dollar/multi-year consensus has always been with me.

You don't need to waste wishes pleading for status quo to exist.

I notice you don't dispute the fact there is zero propensity for lannwj to author an XT master.  Why is that?   ;)

Because I have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

the point is always want, convince the other to have their consensus on what you want, and i'm not entirely sure tat anyone want to jump on the (MB train

I was trying to get a grab of xtnodes.com to post before nobody_cares.gif.  But, sadly, it's down.  Again.   :'(

You know your shit is getting nuked from space when CloudFail can't protect you.   :D

https://i.imgur.com/RGeJAz6.png

Agree, increase it because people want it. We must increase it.

Yep. It's obvious an increase is needed.

When it becomes too large, that will be obvious too. Perhaps it's a good idea to pick a solution that allows for that possibility also?

Yep.  This (https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/6963ce5c3c464364884e47e111f1077262b68615) and this (https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/cc1a7b53629b265e1be6e212d64524f709d27022) are both consensus critical and have nothing to do with BIP101 or big blocks, and yet are included in the "big-blocks-only" XT branch for some reason.  I am not aware of any proper review of these patches (there is no official BIP AFAIK).

In other words, "big-blocks-only" XT is not "big blocks only".  Instead it's BIP101+"resource-counting-hardfork" which both trigger using the same 75% voting method.

Instead, see https://github.com/mikehearn/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks (https://github.com/mikehearn/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks) here for a "pure" BIP101 implementation (does not include the above mentioned patches).  However, this version will be consensus-incompatible with the "big-blocks-only" XT branch because it includes BIP101 but not the "resource-counting-hardfork".  It could be a mess if one a sizable number of miners/nodes upgrade to one but not the other.

I agree with op, core dev's need to pull their sh*t togeather. If they did their job in the first place, we wouldn't have xt debate at all.
Even if this xt is falling apart, there will be something similar within few months, no doubt about it.

If there only the money invested that make disagreement about the XT this is not serious. For bitcoin are invested much much more millions. If for the best of the coin the important developers and people behind it think only for this things poor us and poor bitcoin technology. They must be substituted and replaced with open mind people which think about the future of this wonderful technology and not about the money.

The technology is money.

Remind me why it is we should separate the technology from it's purpose? Be careful when opening your mind, your brain might fall out....

To be honest, I don't even know what to think anymore about all of this debate. I have heard so many opinions, so many theories, so many FUD, and so many disinformations that my head spins at the moment and whenever I go to read through another thread.

It might be possible, that the best way to survive all this is to go and hide into the cave and just wait that everything ends. I mean, this is really getting ridiculous!

Good topic.  At the end of the day - Core Supporters resort to BS excuses for why they aren't addressing an obvious compromise solution that would most likely kill XT.  You'd get bigger block size, and Gavin/Mike would be left with no arguments except for focusing solely on the IP Tracking / Blacklist aspects of XT.  Since that would be a weak political position - XT would most likely never reach 75%.  Continuing to do nothing pretty much guarantees a succesful XT Fork.

Wrong. I'm promoting dynamic blocksizes as much as this stream of pro-XT effluent will allow, but it's not possible to work it into every reply and still appear a credible debater.

(note that many or most pro-XT'ers don't seem to understand that logic, they've been happy to completely subvert discourse in order to work their non-pertinent messages into it)

My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.

Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???

there is already a patched xt version which only uses bigger blocks.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
that are three different things.

(imho i dont think any of the changes is shady; but everybody can use whatever they want. and miners (=pools) seems to run custom code anyway.)

Lol fuck you.

This is xt agenda of increasing blocksize and it wont happen.

There is no proofs, no data, no tests, no financial incentive, and no ´mass adoption' to support immédiate blocksize increase.

There is simply no problem.

Just you ignorant fudsters.

You Mad Bro? Go altcoin.

Good riddance.

XT will die anyway. I don't believe the majority will choose them because why should they? If its developers really have some CIA connections we'd be shooting ourselves in the knee.

what do you mean?  hard fork is necessary for any max blocksize change.

It's also necessary to any changes relating to the blocksize; including a minimum size, unlimited size, market determined sizes etc.

I'm sure jonald didn't mean to confuse the issue by implying that increasing the size to a fixed limit is the only option, isn't that right jonald?

Maybe if this September stress test is for real it will force the core devs to make a change and not think about their bank account size with blockstream.

how would you increase blocksize?
which secrets do you mean?
...just read github and you know it.. very secret ;)

XT will kill himself. It will never reach 75%.

there is a thrid path

find some devs willing to fork Core yet again ( excetly how XT did it ) with increased block size and nothing else

then we let the miners and users decide which fork to run,

1)with block limit,  Core
2)with minimal block limit increase,  Core++
3)with block limit increase and loads of other changes we arent sure about, XT


Edit: fuck it man make like 3 different version of Core each one mines blocks with a different version number corresponding to the different proposed implementation of limit increase 

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

feel free to fork this if you don't want it mikes name...

i don't want it to be called XT its i want Core with a different version number thats all
i don't want it to increase blocklimit by much, increasing block limit is both necessary and controversial, i believe we will achieve consensus fast if the limit is increased only to met the needs of the moment ( double it to 2MB)
i dont want to fork it myself, i want the devs all the devs to agree to a procedure to achieve consensus, having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementation all forked from the dev team as a hole
none of this BS "Core Vs XT war", present to us the options in a clam and orderly fashion and let us vote

basicly i want the dev team to all work together, when they can't agree they all submit their proposals to THE BOSS and boss being the community

wouldn't that be wonderful?

It needs to be enlarged but not to 8mb, the only question is when is bitcoins blocks going to be made bigger and how? This is the problem and I think xt was just trying to solve this by taking the initiative.

bottom line is increasing the limit to 20MB wouldn't be a very big deal, XT wants to increase it enough so this limit never becomes an issue again, because its so hard to get poeple to agree everytime the issue comes up.

but with the above proposed solution, they could increase it to 2MB right away pretty sure everyone would agree to that, and a year later if its still an issue because sidechain and or blockstream isn't all it's cracked up to be, just do it again and let the community vote to increase it again maybe this time the community will want to see 8MB block with a set rate of increase so we never see this issue again.  

point is its not up to the devs to decide which options is best at which time, let the boss (the community) make that determination, believe it or not it will be easier to get 90% of the entire community to pick one option then to have 9/10 devs agree (that is in fact what gavin is banking on)

and OP is right thats how to kill XT, you listen to what the community wants and you give it to them.

That's been tried for over a year, and its not happening.
It's even more clear its not happening after the core
devs aren't going for the 2mb proposal.

They are stonewalling and will never agree because
it conflicts with their business interests in Blockstream.

This is becoming increasingly apparent.   

they have proposals BIP 100 BIP 101 BIP 102 etc..
they just have no way of getting their little group of devs to commit to one plan of action
we need to have them create different versions for each BIP and see where the community flocks too
they need to surrender the decision making process to the community and they need to do it now!

its not like Greg Maxwell favors Bip 100 and Peter Wuille favors Bip 101
and they just can't agree.  None of the Blockstream guys want to
meaningfully raise the limit. (Unless you count Peter Wuille's Bip 103 which
only gets us to 2MB by 2021, but I wouldn't call that a meaningful increase)

Yes, they need to surrender the decision making to the community but
they clearly aren't.

This is hegel dialectic.
Problem -> reaction -> solution

(pseudo)Problem: blocksize
reaction: Gavinhearn attack
solution: blocksize increase

You're all being toyed and mindfucked with. If everything goes according to plan none of you have a choice but to agree on a blocksize increase which was the goal from the beginning. You have no choice because "if you don't vote for bigger blocks now Gavinhearn will win".
This whole debate is rigged from the very beginning and XT winning isn't even intended. The goal here is to get everyone to agree on a blocksize increase without a real need for it, not to adopt xt. XT is just the scarecrow to get your consent to blocksize expansion.

lol no. the comunity does not have a friggin clue about what it wants.

+ that 3 version core is bullshit. you dont want to split 3 bitcoin version, i mean seriously? wtf man.  >:(

either you are happy with bitcoin and support it fully, or you dont and go find some other altcoin. but either way you stfu about its development.

it wouldnt be a split, simply a way for everyone to vote ( hashing with a specific version number) to see where everyone stands, and then poeple will change there votes to achieve consensus. let's face it bip 100..105 are all the same damn thing with a twist, which way do we go? why not let hashing power vote, it's ultimately come to that with XT, but its ugly business now.

In a few months there may be dozens of alternate bitcoin forks and no one will be able to trust or understand half of them...bitcoin will be obfuscated the same way the alt scene has turned to a confusing infinite pile of shit coins.

I see your point. Most people that are pushing for XT are clueless and hey only see the blocksize selling point for XT, without all the downsides. So a bit of a raise in Core should come soon to keep those guys happy.

100% agree. they are playing that mass whatever adoption card to destroy bitcoin within the inside.
the crowd's innocence, thinking bitcoin will save the world is that socialist card the system always play to fuck up everything.

Hegelian dialectic runs the world, until a critical number of people understand that. It relies on deception.

Conspiracy is a legal term, is it not?

If Mike and Gavin's plan was a secret, and also illegal, it would meet the qualifications for being deemed a conspiracy. That's what conspiracy means. So it's not a conspiracy at all.

That does not mean that XT is not an example of the Hegelian dialectic in action. Conspiracies and the Hegelian dialectic are separate concepts.

OP is correct.

all this stupid XT madness start right after coinwallet.eu "testing", when everybody was surprised, how easy and cheap may be to paralyse bitcoin network and because it was quite unclear, how it will be with block size, something called XT gained popularity.

so yeah, it start with blocksize discussion and it may be end with the same stuff. so just increase the size, forget about chinese manipulators or some guy called Mike and lets continue with open-source idea..  

Arguably the greatest threat to bitcoin is those who don't believe in Consensus and are willing to go against a consensus decision to maintain their own block chain, splitting bitcoin in half, doubling the 21 million limit, inflating bitcoin by 50%, making every bodies bitcoin much less valuable, and possibly destroying confidence in bitcoin's scarcity as a store of value, ultimately killing Bitcoin for everybody.

For all of the hate and animosity I see coming from the Anti-XT side of this debate, we should note that the greatest threat to bitcoin is those who will destroy bitcoin for everyone by not accepting a consensus decision.

That a good idea to increase blocksize at bitcoin core
but who will do it ?
where satosi nakamoto ?

the solution is bitcoin XT... I vote to bitcoin XT

Why have so many threads on one topic?
All by the Op! If I believe his latest stance about supporting core if they where to create bigger blocks, then what am I supposed to make of the other threads?
Its insulting to play members of the forum this way. Debate fine but the propaganda can stop.

I am just very concerned with the current debate and am doing my best to understand the problem and work towards the best solution. My stance has evolved from vehemently Anti-XT, to tentatively Pro-XT, to confidently Pro-XT, back and now to Pro Core BlockSize increase but XT if Core is stonewalled. My posts reflect this evolution and invite productive discussion.

I agree. This is the easiest way to cut off bitcoin XT or at least make the core devs look relevant if they would make their own block size decision ..would calm the waters imho
even if bitcoin xt ran the clock out to its Jan fork

Why they have NOT done this leads me to believe two things:

1) these two groups really really hate each others guts now and it is all about power

2) and power as such means the keys to the kingdom of where the code of btc will go ..if it goes to bitcoin XT then two devs will decide how far how fast
    (or not) to make core changes..ie ...coup de ta.  On the other hand in the other camp the core devs say get the win...and probably be the worst of worlds in the other direction and will not innovate much nor push new code very little ..ie the status quo...in other words either way has more ..much more risks and such then just frigging consensus

3) Then again I again agree with the OP here ....the only play the core group has is to raise block size (even modestly) to calm the waters and again I find them NOT
     doing so .....so puzzling...it again has to be all my way or the highway in both camps dev power play

Sh*t just put them 'nerds' in a room and they could have a 'slap fight' for consensus it would be more entertaining and guicker then dragging this out to January 2016 imho
with the fork

Most people want big size block, but they don't like XT.
If the core developer can't give people  big size block, then the only choice is XT.

What exactly is preventing us, or anyone from just implementing BIP101 and submitting it to the community? And Bigger block is something that we will need in the future but i don't see any urgency. Even XT at the very least wont come to be for months. So again;

Why the rush?

We dont need XT. what we need is bitcoin core increase blocksize

Make it 2MB already! Why do you still wait? Do we have to depend on some X-Core devs? We still have other devs. Let's make it happen and discussion will be over. I don't see anybody who rejects 2 MB block size.

Seems not to be the case. It is available, but nobody is downloading it yet. They prefer XT.

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Satoshi%20+%20BIP101:0.11.0/

Didn't you read, some core developers aren't letting the block size increase with core, so creating xt you bypass that. So some core developers are just being an ass here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366


This discussion is old. :)