Bitcoin Forum

Click Here to Read Article (https://diginomics.com/why-bitcoinxt-must-never-gain-consensus/)

Putting into effect BIP101 would result in an increase to 8MB after January 11, 2016. In order to gain consensus, the number of nodes running the bitcoinxt client would need to reach a supermajority of 75%. After that point, there would be a 2 week window to transition to the new fork as the old blockchain becomes incompatible with bitcoinxt. From there, the blocksize limit is set to increase linearly to a maximum of 8GB in 2036. Once started, the block limit doubling schedule cannot be stopped until 8Gb is reached.

Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?

If Bitcoin comes to depend on bureaucrats rather than protocol, you might as well use Visa. They know how to do that far better.

– Nick Szabo, August 21, 2015

Yes.

Quote from: satoshi

In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes. I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume.

It was actually designed to do even more. It was designed also to make payments cheaper than Visa to permit "small casual transactions" online too.  

https://i.imgur.com/4gXcO4i.png

Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?

Adopting the bitcoinxt fork will make the incentives for miners in the form of transaction fees miniscule, and will instead enable centralization.

Small casual transactions can be built ontop of the main bitcoin blockchain once those solutions are developed. Molding the main payment layer of the blockchain into something which can pay for small purchases such as coffee will ruin the main monetary uses of bitcoin.

That's why several mining pools are supporting the 8mb proposal.  They must be looking forward to receiving "miniscule" amounts of fees.  Oh wait, that makes no sense whatsoever.   ::)

Also:

Assume Network 'A' can process a maximum of 2500 transactions per block and the average fee is .0001

Assume Network 'B' can process a maximum of 20000 transactions per block and the average fee is .00005

Which network can potentially generate a higher amount in fees?  That's right, the one that can support more transactions.  Learn to math plz.  Clearly the miners who support the fork have done their homework and understand basic numeracy.




You mean it will ruin "your" main monetary uses of Bitcoin.  If a majority support the fork, maybe their main monetary use includes small purchases and they don't want some elitist telling what they can and can't do in a permissionless system.  If your uses aren't compatible with that, maybe this isn't the project you thought it was.

In the light of the precedent post showing some very interesting writing of Satoshi, can we at least agree on a "YES" as an answer?

[EDIT]
this will be my sig for now on :)

Correction: The number of mined blocks would need to reach 75% of the latest 1000 blocks.

This is what I think that miners would be the major players on making decisions because bigger blocks would give them bigger rewards.

I'd love to see someone say, that Satoshi was wrong about that.
That would be a much more honest move, than to deny things that are written in the Whitepaper.

If bitcoin is to reach its full potential, it needs the ability to handle larger transaction volumes, plain and simple.  There is no way around that.  So we need a solution to this problem.  XT is the best proposal right now, and speaking of satoshi afaik he never intended for the block size to stay small.  Sidechains might be promising, but are not a solution right now.  They are unproven. 

Why don't you actually read the article before posting such a shallow comment?

I stopped reading after you told me to "learn to math" after conjuring up your own silly equation.

Based on your signature, it sounds like you're interested more in pimping that site than anything else.
The article isn't convincing me.  For example, it says we will have problems with transaction
throughput.  Which is basically saying : Don't remove one bottleneck because there might be
another one to contend with.

Nice try.  Thanks for playing.

Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions.

here the coup de grâce, if we stick to 1MB blocks we'll pay minner 10-100X more on TX fees and they will continue to deliver a system that can't handle more the 1/100000^th Visa's system.

pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT

When "it was actually designed" the distinction between bitcoin-the-blockchain-based-technology and Bitcoin-the-canonical-implementation-of-bitcoin" didn't exit.

E-cash in general, thanks to Bitcoin/bitcoin, has already enabled payments cheaper (because non-reversible if nothing else) than Visa.  It costs almost nothing to send Primecoins, Litecoins, etc.

As it matures, Bitcoin-the-coin will naturally exclude marginal use cases better served by alt/side/off chain processors.

In the end of the day, the funny thing is that visa net does not make payments. Its a reporting network only. It moves not a single dollar. I dont know why I think that is significant in the context of everyone comparing ti to bitcoin - a digital peer-to-peer cash payment system.  ;D

Nobody wants that tho. Raising the block size now is not needed now. It wont be needed for at least a year or two.

Raising it so aggressively to 8GB so fast as Gavin/Hearn intend is bad.

And how do you know exactly if the big players supporting BIP101 aren't ready to mass marketeer their products?

Nobody wants what?

no one wants to let the 1MB limit be the reason miners 10-100X TX fees

i also agree Gavin/Hearn fix seems like overkill, all we should really be trying to get out of this mod is a quick fix not a be all end all solution to scalability

If the large companies in the Bitcoin space can decide by majority vote (not consensus) to change the protocol, then the governments those same companies are regulated by can force those commercial entities to regulate the Bitcoin protocol. It will no longer be an apolitical protocol that runs on consensus.

Bitcoin is driven by economic incentives and market forces. Raising the blocksize limit has an obvious economic incentives for businesses and miners. Governments can't do shit about it.

You are sadly naive when it comes to government influence over businesses. And the economic and market forces have spoken, you check the price recently  ::)

What are governments waiting for to regulate the internet to death? They can't for the same reasons they won't be able with bitcoin.

Did you check the stock markets recently? Especially the Chinese one(since most miners are Chinese)
There are so many thing going on in the world, you just can't draw a straight line from cause to effect, but I seriously doubt, that this debate has much to do, with the price movement.


That is exactly the point. If we need it in a year, we have to make the preparations now. You just can't switch a global system over from one day to another, you should plan at least 6 months for that.

We can at least agree that bitcoin WAS designed for mass transaction.
We can now disagree on the fact that satoshi was wrong and that it cannot be Or that the decision cannot be taken now.
So when do you think we should start raising blocksize? In a year? 2? why ?