|
Title: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: gizmoh on August 24, 2015, 04:54:50 PM http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/
Quote Our community stands at a crossroads. The debate about which path to take has, by and large, been a healthy one, and we have not interposed our own positions or interfered in the discourse. Until today, our involvement has consisted of listening, researching and testing. We believe that work is complete, and it is time to communicate our view in a clear and transparent manner. After lengthy conversations with core developers, miners, our own technical teams, and other industry participants, we believe it is imperative that we plan for success by raising the maximum block size. We support the implementation of BIP101. We have found Gavin’s arguments on both the need for larger blocks and the feasibility of their implementation – while safeguarding Bitcoin’s decentralization – to be convincing. BIP101 and 8MB blocks are already supported by a majority of the miners and we feel it is time for the industry to unite behind this proposal. Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. As our community grows, it is essential – now more than ever that we seek strong consensus to ensure network reliability. We pledge to support BIP101 in our software and systems by December 2015, and we encourage others to join us. Together, we are: Stephen Pair CEO, BitPay.com Peter Smith CEO, Blockchain.info Jeremy Allaire CEO, Circle.com Sean Neville President, Circle.com Same Cole CEO, Kncminer.com John McDonnell CEO, Bitnet.io Wences Casares CEO, Xapo.com Mike Belshe CEO, Bitgo.com - See more at: http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/#sthash.1QLfp5mt.dpuf Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: knight22 on August 24, 2015, 05:01:44 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?!
Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: maokoto on August 24, 2015, 05:04:29 PM Well, pressure is being done to the increment of block size. I sense it is just a mater of time before core implements it.
Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Come-from-Beyond on August 24, 2015, 05:15:55 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! They want blacklisting and deanonymization added in XT. It's the only way to get their business extended 100-fold (by cooperating with authorities). Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 24, 2015, 06:06:29 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! They want blacklisting and deanonymization added in XT. It's the only way to get their business extended 100-fold (by cooperating with authorities). Another FUD believer, Why even open your mouth to remove all doubt? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 24, 2015, 06:08:38 PM great move :) - ill go with them
Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 24, 2015, 06:09:13 PM Well, pressure is being done to the increment of block size. I sense it is just a mater of time before core implements it. Does not matter Core implement it or not. BitcoinXT will be on the longest chain as it will be compatible after the fork. So if you support BIP101, you will support BItcoinXT. Even if XT nodes arent majority, It will just be an alt wallet client. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 24, 2015, 06:11:31 PM Well, pressure is being done to the increment of block size. I sense it is just a mater of time before core implements it. Does not matter Core implement it or not. BitcoinXT will be on the longest chain as it will be compatible after the fork. So if you support BIP101, you will support BItcoinXT. Even if XT nodes arent majority, It will just be an alt wallet client. Good point. Look at all these FUDsters who don't even understand "I'll quit if they go with XT wahhhhh"... both XT and Core will work. Core will be forced to implement BIP 101 because of XT. Also, so much FUD about Blacklisting. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Come-from-Beyond on August 24, 2015, 06:14:17 PM Another FUD believer, Why even open your mouth to remove all doubt? That story about blacklisting and deanonymization was FUD? Then why include that code in XT at all? Why not BIP101 alone? PS: Ah, I've got it! Calling something "FUD" doesn't involve brain and hence is much easier than an attempt to critically analyze forum posts. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Come-from-Beyond on August 24, 2015, 06:18:39 PM Also, so much FUD about Blacklisting. It's the main feature of Bitcoin development process. First they create something kinda disabled, later they add "!" and hide it in other completely unrelated changes, of course, commit notes don't mention "!". Read early Bitcoin commits, Satoshi set this tradition by himself. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 24, 2015, 06:21:27 PM Another FUD believer, Why even open your mouth to remove all doubt? That story about blacklisting and deanonymization was FUD? Then why include that code in XT at all? Why not BIP101 alone? PS: Ah, I've got it! Calling something "FUD" doesn't involve brain and hence is much easier than an attempt to critically analyze forum posts. There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. Also most of the historical discussions here about blacklisting mean blacklisting of coins, which would destroy fungibility, whereas this would only be some kind of node specific blacklisting of IPs which are optional and controlled by each node as a DOS defense. That's my understanding of it. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Come-from-Beyond on August 24, 2015, 06:24:25 PM There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: brg444 on August 24, 2015, 06:26:53 PM Might as well just copy/paste
All part of the little coordinated XT push. A good cop/bad cop trap for suckers to fall in. Unscrupulous lobbying of VC-backed companies willing to throw a bone to the investors for more funding rounds. "Look Mr. Banker, we just upgraded the Bitcoin network to support 8X more transactions, that should get us some users! You all know Bitcoin users LOVE to make transactions right, right?" Quote Until today, our involvement has consisted of listening, researching and testing. Where is the research? Can we see the "tests"? Can't these industry "leaders" wait until the actual industry has met for a final push to a resolution (Scaling Bitcoin) until picking sides? Speaking of "ivory tower" what use should we, the community, make of this pathetic PR coup? Are we supposed to just swallow this and take it for granted these guys have done their research? Of course we shouldn't shame them with our suspicion or any reconsideration or validation of their actual motivations and reasoning. These are the bankers of the Bitcoin world and you are sucking up them without any discretion because...they're VCs & entrepreneurs so they must know what they're doing and surely what they are doing is for the best of everyone in Bitcoin, right. Right? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Peter R on August 24, 2015, 06:27:23 PM There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: ArticMine on August 24, 2015, 06:29:42 PM There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? That remains to be seen. The investors in Blockstream would not be very pleased with the 8MB blocks. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Mickeyb on August 24, 2015, 06:35:21 PM Well this needs to be fu***ng solved. I am sick and tired of this discussion for almost 2 years now. I hope that this will be solved asap. This is definitely a big slap in the face to the core people. If it's true that big Chinese miners are as well for the block increase, than what are they waiting for God's sake.
Lets implement bigger blocks so we can move forward with the show! Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: coinpr0n on August 24, 2015, 06:36:17 PM There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? That's what they're supposed to do. But if I were Core dev and ethically against BIP101 I would probably cease working on it altogether. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: brg444 on August 24, 2015, 06:37:14 PM There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? That remains to be seen. The investors in Blockstream would not be very pleased with the 8MB blocks. Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Come-from-Beyond on August 24, 2015, 06:48:46 PM If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? I don't know what to think of this. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: dothebeats on August 24, 2015, 06:49:15 PM I'd still remain neutral, though in this case the industry and the economy has the final say.
Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 24, 2015, 06:51:08 PM There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? That remains to be seen. The investors in Blockstream would not be very pleased with the 8MB blocks. Thats their fault for thinking their 25millions can suck even 10% of 4 billion marketcaps. The bitcoin industry should show them, we dont sell shit for cheap. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: maokoto on August 24, 2015, 06:51:51 PM Well, pressure is being done to the increment of block size. I sense it is just a mater of time before core implements it. Does not matter Core implement it or not. BitcoinXT will be on the longest chain as it will be compatible after the fork. So if you support BIP101, you will support BItcoinXT. Even if XT nodes arent majority, It will just be an alt wallet client. Thanks for clarifying. So XT will be compatible either way? I am not sure if the size increase is much needed or not (just learning about it through you guys :)) but I will definitely move with what works. If XT shows to be the solution, I will move. Not dogmatic about that. But Core will not move if it is not forced, and this letter makes pressure. No doubt about it. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Denker on August 24, 2015, 06:55:32 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Peter R on August 24, 2015, 06:55:41 PM Thanks for clarifying. So XT will be compatible either way? Yes, XT will follow the longest chain whether BIP101 is activated or not. If you are impartial, I suggest: - Running XT - Running XT (big-blocks only) - Compiling Core with BIP101 patch and running that (requires programming experience). Using either of these methods, your node will track the longest chain. https://i.imgur.com/HOT1XfX.png Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: ArticMine on August 24, 2015, 07:21:09 PM There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101. Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that one or the "normal" XT is their decision. It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details. If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain? That remains to be seen. The investors in Blockstream would not be very pleased with the 8MB blocks. Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size. ... but if price of transacting on the main chain is low enough there will be no incentive to move to the side chain or Lightning Network. Blockstream does need bigger blocks but only at a controlled rate that they can influence and / or control. Bitcoin XT throws a monkey wrench into this business model. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: smoothie on August 24, 2015, 07:23:04 PM basically this says "anyone who is stalling the block size increase you have been put on notice"
:P Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: smoothie on August 24, 2015, 07:25:04 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. If those who want the block size to stay at 1 MB for a long time or forever...let them eat the dust as they get left behind. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Peter R on August 24, 2015, 07:25:32 PM basically this says "anyone who is stalling the block size increase you have been put on notice" :P Smoothie, I received my physical bitcoin yesterday! Looks great!! Thank you very much :) Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Zarathustra on August 24, 2015, 07:36:43 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 24, 2015, 07:51:46 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. LOL Oh yeah,,,,.... remember Theymos wants to censor any services supporting BIP101 on his bitcoin.org ? Like i said i want to dare him to follow his words now. What i want to see if Theymos will follow his words and ..... stop supporting all the services above on his site "www.bitcoin.org".... LOL lets see if he can shoot himself in the foot. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: smoothie on August 24, 2015, 07:58:57 PM basically this says "anyone who is stalling the block size increase you have been put on notice" :P Smoothie, I received my physical bitcoin yesterday! Looks great!! Thank you very much :) You're welcome. Glad you like it! Aloha ;D Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: smoothie on August 24, 2015, 08:00:19 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. lol banned? Who is going to ban bitcoin businesses from operating in the space? Oh you mean on this forum? Who gives a shit about placement on this forum if the businesses choosing bigger blocks hold the majority of bitcoin customers in their back pocket? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 24, 2015, 08:02:50 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. lol banned? Who is going to ban bitcoin businesses from operating in the space? Oh you mean on this forum? Who gives a shit about placement on this forum if the businesses choosing bigger blocks hold the majority of bitcoin customers in their back pocket? Ban from "www.bitcoin.org".... Guess who control the site? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Zarathustra on August 24, 2015, 08:16:57 PM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. lol banned? Who is going to ban bitcoin businesses from operating in the space? Who? The greatest inquisitor of all time! Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 24, 2015, 10:31:30 PM Pools already lining up to support big blocks
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: coinpr0n on August 24, 2015, 10:43:20 PM Pools already lining up to support big blocks https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC Hmm... pleasantly surprised to see BIP100 getting some love. Now just the pull request has to be merged into Core. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: dachnik on August 25, 2015, 12:05:54 AM Pools already lining up to support big blocks https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC 8Mb option is at 26%, while BIP100 is at 7% BIP101 at less than 1% I wonder if 8Mb belongs to any BIP or is just one-time fork without any baked-in increase schedule? That would seem to be the most responsible, yet future proof solution to date. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 25, 2015, 12:21:17 AM Pools already lining up to support big blocks https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC 8Mb option is at 26%, while BIP100 is at 7% BIP101 at less than 1% I wonder if 8Mb belongs to any BIP or is just one-time fork without any baked-in increase schedule? That would seem to be the most responsible, yet future proof solution to date. Unclear, but good question. Anyone have eyes on any forums of pools like Bitfury who aren't yet supporting big blocks? Are miners asking for it? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Liquid71 on August 25, 2015, 12:22:05 AM Well if the a few companies can control Bitcoin, what happens when governments who regulate those companies decide they want to regulate Bitcoin and blacklist transactions to say wikileaks ???
Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: adamstgBit on August 25, 2015, 12:24:00 AM Well if the a few companies can control Bitcoin, what happens when governments who regulate those companies decide they want to regulate Bitcoin and blacklist transactions to say wikileaks ??? we all start using LTC? what your suggesting is so far out there it's not even funny Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Liquid71 on August 25, 2015, 12:25:16 AM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. lol banned? Who is going to ban bitcoin businesses from operating in the space? Oh you mean on this forum? Who gives a shit about placement on this forum if the businesses choosing bigger blocks hold the majority of bitcoin customers in their back pocket? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: johnyj on August 25, 2015, 12:40:06 AM Some kind of middle ground to take BIP101, one step ahead than XT
But bitcoin price crashed following this announcement: Any kind of action without consensus is killing bitcoin. You can keep fighting inside the community, just to wake up with a coin that worth nothing, and together goes all those so called industries Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: GODLIKE on August 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM Bitcoin dropping to hell again... and I don't fuckin know what to do.
Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: tvbcof on August 25, 2015, 01:18:50 AM Nice try. BIP101 is just Gavin's old exponential bloat that guarantees 8GB blocks and bakes in severe centralization which is exactly what his sponsor's demand. I'd give it maybe a month before they start ramming in Mikes spyware changes from XT anyway. Here's my BIP idea. I've suggested to one of the Blockstream guys that they consider it as probably the last golden opportunity to fix the glaring defects in Bitcoin: - Shitcan sha256 completely if the miners really are being cocks and don't even throw them a bone (of a form I won't bother to discuss here.) - Switch POW over to a random shifting set of algorithms which are ASIC unfriendly. - Make not only transfer nodes be rewarded, but have a weighted reward based on distributions of various kinds (geographic, jurisdictional, political, etc.) These were the goals which I envisioned for the 'paracoin' project (which was spurred in large part by one of the numerous attempts that Hearn has made over the years to make sure Bitcoin gets swallowed by giant corporates.) I hope that there is a skunk-works project somewhere is going on which would have such a thing ready as an alternate when Hearndresen spring their trap. I would not only support it, but I would be likely subject my BTC stash to it via proof-of-burn if there is a reason to do so. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 25, 2015, 01:19:52 AM Bitcoin dropping to hell again... and I don't fuckin know what to do. Fade the weakness. Buy and let the bulls take you higher. People are freaking out about the blocksize but the reality is that consensus is forming and pools are voting to increase. Plus the block halving is coming next year. Its a good opportunity. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 25, 2015, 02:01:56 AM Nice try. BIP101 is just Gavin's old exponential bloat that guarantees 8GB blocks and bakes in severe centralization which is exactly what his sponsor's demand. I'd give it maybe a month before they start ramming in Mikes spyware changes from XT anyway. Here's my BIP idea. I've suggested to one of the Blockstream guys that they consider it as probably the last golden opportunity to fix the glaring defects in Bitcoin: - Shitcan sha256 completely if the miners really are being cocks and don't even throw them a bone (of a form I won't bother to discuss here.) - Switch POW over to a random shifting set of algorithms which are ASIC unfriendly. - Make not only transfer nodes be rewarded, but have a weighted reward based on distributions of various kinds (geographic, jurisdictional, political, etc.) These were the goals which I envisioned for the 'paracoin' project (which was spurred in large part by one of the numerous attempts that Hearn has made over the years to make sure Bitcoin gets swallowed by giant corporates.) I hope that there is a skunk-works project somewhere is going on which would have such a thing ready as an alternate when Hearndresen spring their trap. I would not only support it, but I would be likely subject my BTC stash to it via proof-of-burn if there is a reason to do so. Wow you're very close in beating turtlehuricane for his champion position. I think you should turn off your computer, and get laid (even you must pay for it) to unclog your dick , i mean your head abit. God bless you Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: danielW on August 25, 2015, 02:13:26 AM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Except for the fact that raising block size does not scale. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 25, 2015, 02:20:16 AM iBit just jumps on board :
http://w3.itbit.com/blog/itbit-endorses-bip101-larger-block-sizes Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: meono on August 25, 2015, 02:21:20 AM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Quote Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Except for the fact that raising block size does not scale. except, you're confused between fact and opinion. Typical among the XT bashers tho. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: BitProdigy on August 25, 2015, 03:29:10 AM My hope is that they run BIP101 without XT's "extra features", I think is a much higher chance of consensus in that case, and much lower chance of bitcoin splitting into two chains.
I think the BITCOIN COMMUNITY should write and sign a letter like a petition issuing our demands on this issue. That we want equal choices and equal opportunity for all proposed BIPs and we want 90% consensus rather that 75%. Something like that. Who's with me?? Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 25, 2015, 04:38:11 AM Literally no one here noticed this is on blockchain.com, not blockchain.info. Looks fake, and if those CEOs we're going to announce this they'd each release a statement. The lack of critical analysis is frustrating, don't be sheeple..... Yes, it sure is. https://i.imgur.com/KgvAkQU.png Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: coinpr0n on August 25, 2015, 07:26:52 AM Literally no one here noticed this is on blockchain.com, not blockchain.info. Looks fake, and if those CEOs we're going to announce this they'd each release a statement. The lack of critical analysis is frustrating, don't be sheeple..... I'm mostly against the move, especially XT-style, but please ... you should know by now that blockchain.com belongs to the same company blockchain.info. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: turvarya on August 25, 2015, 07:33:29 AM Literally no one here noticed this is on blockchain.com, not blockchain.info. Looks fake, and if those CEOs we're going to announce this they'd each release a statement. The lack of critical analysis is frustrating, don't be sheeple..... I'm mostly against the move, especially XT-style, but please ... you should know by now that blockchain.com belongs to the same company blockchain.info. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: kelsey on August 25, 2015, 08:32:11 AM yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads ???
Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Lauda on August 25, 2015, 10:03:33 AM yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads ??? The economic majority does. However, XT supporters are misinterpreting information and spreading lies. Let's make this a bit more visible:Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT. Bitpay: Quote In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core. (https://medium.com/@spair/increasing-the-block-size-limit-85ff236fc516) This is a interesting website that nobody had posted about (or I've missed it). (http://blocksize.org/index.html) Although some of the information about XT supporters is invalid or outdated, the website seems nice. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Swordsoffreedom on August 25, 2015, 10:06:29 AM Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! They want blacklisting and deanonymization added in XT. It's the only way to get their business extended 100-fold (by cooperating with authorities). Seemed like a miswording since a Blacklist implies bitcoins fungibility there are only 21 million Bitcoins so affecting supply would be a no go, deanonymization part is fine. Edit in: Prioritizing would have been better but yah people needed context on that one have it now. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: dothebeats on August 25, 2015, 10:15:18 AM yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads ??? Because they represent a large portion of the industry wherein bitcoin manifests. The economy mainly decides in this kind of decisions, not the miners and the devs because the economy will be the one that will be hurt the most in case shit happens. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: kelsey on August 25, 2015, 10:22:40 AM yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads ??? Because they represent a large portion of the industry wherein bitcoin manifests. The economy mainly decides in this kind of decisions, not the miners and the devs because the economy will be the one that will be hurt the most in case shit happens. i think though tis the traders who decide ;) Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: Rampion on August 25, 2015, 11:05:58 AM Pools already lining up to support big blocks https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC Most of them support either 8MB or Garzik's BIP100. Gavin's and Hearn's BIP101 is getting extremely little support (less than 1%). This is because even the most business-minded CEOs of funded startups who dream of taking on board 2 billion users in 6 months understand that going to 8MB to then double the block size every fucking year till we reach 8GB blocks (!!!) is simply reckless and crazy. Almost everybody knows that bigger blocks are needed rather sooner than later - what the SANE people in this community is trying to do is to reach a reasonable and safe consensus about how and when to increase such limits. Finally, I guess that even the CEOs of hyper-funded startups understand what bitcoin users are looking for when they use bitcoin... Quoting a thread on reddit: Quote I want an incorruptible non-government controlled store of value upon which a new global currency can be built. I don't care about low transaction fees or fast confirmations as I already have those. I want a place to store my wealth that can't be stolen via inflation of the money supply. A wealth asset that is safe and can be converted to any medium of exchange that I want when I choose. I want a digital gold. I want privacy. I want a money which is not centrally controlled but rather controls the growth of centralized institutions and gives more power back to individuals enabling us to make economic judgments and allocate scarce resources in a distributed manner not in a centralized one. I think this is what Satoshi also really wanted and I think we're gonna get it. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: dachnik on August 25, 2015, 11:56:35 AM Pools already lining up to support big blocks https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC Most of them support either 8MB or Garzik's BIP100. Gavin's and Hearn's BIP101 is getting extremely little support (less than 1%). This is because even the most business-minded CEOs of funded startups who dream of taking on board 2 billion users in 6 months understand that going to 8MB to then double the block size every fucking year till we reach 8GB blocks (!!!) is simply reckless and crazy. Almost everybody knows that bigger blocks are needed rather sooner than later - what the SANE people in this community is trying to do is to reach a reasonable and safe consensus about how and when to increase such limits. Finally, I guess that even the CEOs of hyper-funded startups understand what bitcoin users are looking for when they use bitcoin... Quoting a thread on reddit: Quote I want an incorruptible non-government controlled store of value upon which a new global currency can be built. I don't care about low transaction fees or fast confirmations as I already have those. I want a place to store my wealth that can't be stolen via inflation of the money supply. A wealth asset that is safe and can be converted to any medium of exchange that I want when I choose. I want a digital gold. I want privacy. I want a money which is not centrally controlled but rather controls the growth of centralized institutions and gives more power back to individuals enabling us to make economic judgments and allocate scarce resources in a distributed manner not in a centralized one. I think this is what Satoshi also really wanted and I think we're gonna get it. Yep, that's what concerns me about BIP101: we are going to be at 12Mb limit in the beginning of 2017 and at 16Mb limit in the beginning of 2018. It increases gradually over time and seems overly optimistic, and it's not clear if the network can sustain itself without any limit at all. My guess, is that having a static hard cap has more of a psychological effect on preventing attacks than anything else, because an attack cannot have long lasting effects with a known ceiling on block size, so attackers simply won't bother. The 8Mb cap, on the other hand, looks like a reasonable compromise, at least from the standpoint of being competitive as a transactional medium. With 8Mb blocks Bitcoin will have only twice the pre-fork capacity of its closest PoW competitor, so going for anything less might endanger Bitcoin's position as a leader in this space. Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: alani123 on August 25, 2015, 12:18:37 PM Even under bitcoinXT's own parameters, only miners can vote for the fork to be triggered. Only one of the companies that signed this document is directly involved with mining. I've seen many people trying to argue that with those captains of industry showing support to BIP101 adoption of Gavin's and Mike's proposal is unavoidable. That's not the case however. Those businesses are not the entirety of bitcoin ecosystem, and even if we disregard the vote mechanism embedded in bitcoinXT miners are still a very important part of the bitcoin economy. Like it or not, Chinese miners are a huge part of the mining business and they have good reasons to veto bitcoinXT, BIP101 or even everything Mike Hearn is involved with. Given that Mike has said that bitcoin could do without China (http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/) if the miners won't agree with him. If making the CEOs of those western companies sign this document in an attempt to make his worst case scenario (https://vid.me/e/P8FC) sound more reasonable then all I have to say it that I'm disgusted.
Title: Re: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 Post by: dachnik on August 25, 2015, 02:12:17 PM Even under bitcoinXT's own parameters, only miners can vote for the fork to be triggered. Only one of the companies that signed this document is directly involved with mining. I've seen many people trying to argue that with those captains of industry showing support to BIP101 adoption of Gavin's and Mike's proposal is unavoidable. That's not the case however. Those businesses are not the entirety of bitcoin ecosystem, and even if we disregard the vote mechanism embedded in bitcoinXT miners are still a very important part of the bitcoin economy. Like it or not, Chinese miners are a huge part of the mining business and they have good reasons to veto bitcoinXT, BIP101 or even everything Mike Hearn is involved with. Given that Mike has said that bitcoin could do without China (http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/) if the miners won't agree with him. If making the CEOs of those western companies sign this document in an attempt to make his worst case scenario (https://vid.me/e/P8FC) sound more reasonable then all I have to say it that I'm disgusted. The good thing is that BIP101-enabled code (once deployed) would still follow the longest chain if the rest of the network decided to cap the block size at a static flat 8Mb. There simply won't be any block producers that would want to shoot higher than that. So there is no contradiction here. But, I do agree, that BIP101 seems to be designed to significantly shift the balance of power in the network from regions with higher hashing capacity towards the ones with higher bandwidth, which is much harder to increase quickly in order to counter some potential abuses that may arise from this shift. Plus, the effects of block sizes larger than 8Mb on network's structural integrity are unknown at this stage. We need to collect more data on network dynamics under the new hard limit in order to see how fast the technology is able to catch up and what other issues may arise from the increased capacity. For example, how the new limit affects the amount of full nodes and whether an average home internet connection is able to handle the load. Going with a static flat 8Mb limit might create some turbulence down the road, but eventually the tech will advance to the point that we will be "back to normal" with the new data to evaluate and decide how to move forward. |
