|
Title: You can't have it both ways Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 25, 2015, 02:35:42 PM I find it amusing that so many posters
are screaming "Don't touch core. Anything that's not core isn't Bitcoin!". I suspect many of those were the same people who last year said "Bitcoin isn't decentralized. It's controlled by a few core devs!" Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: LFC_Bitcoin on August 25, 2015, 03:05:39 PM we all just want agreement Pretty much this. Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: ashour on August 25, 2015, 03:26:43 PM 3 out of 5 core devs are on the BlockStream paycheck list. The core development team can be bought out but not bitcoin itself. The bitcoin should have kicked out the core developers that work for BlockStream, bitcoin needs to adjust and move forward and it can't happen if 3 of 5 core developers are against innovation.
Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: DooMAD on August 25, 2015, 03:32:05 PM Other gems include:
The small-blockians are basically just generating oxymorons to throw around. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: tiggytomb on August 25, 2015, 03:40:17 PM The sooner the better, it changes or remains the same it still has an uphill struggle to reach it's peak and will still have support from all those currently involved, it's hard to scroll through all these threads and find something that is not focused on this topic right now.
Myself personally I would prefer it to be left as it is with the initial intention left alone to take whatever path it needs to take, if it is not good enough for what people need then an alternative coin will need to be created and run on it's own merits and not on the back of what Bitcoin has thus far achieved. This is just my opinion and with that said whichever way it goes I will still support it. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: VeritasSapere on August 25, 2015, 03:56:45 PM The sooner the better, it changes or remains the same it still has an uphill struggle to reach it's peak and will still have support from all those currently involved, it's hard to scroll through all these threads and find something that is not focused on this topic right now. Increasing the block size has always been a part of the original vision of Bitcoin. Therefore anyone who thinks it is better arbitrarily restricting the size of the blocks then they should be the ones that create the altcoin. Bitcoin should stick with the original vision of satoshi. Therefore if you think it is better having a blockchain that restricts the amount of transactions that can be carried out on it, and that therefore it should become prohibitively expensive so that we need to use third parties in order to even transact. That should be implemented as an altcoin and let the market decide if that is really what it wants.Myself personally I would prefer it to be left as it is with the initial intention left alone to take whatever path it needs to take, if it is not good enough for what people need then an alternative coin will need to be created and run on it's own merits and not on the back of what Bitcoin has thus far achieved. This is just my opinion and with that said whichever way it goes I will still support it. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: VeritasSapere on August 25, 2015, 03:58:48 PM How about this one:
I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core. I am sorry but you can not have it both ways. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335) Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: ashour on August 25, 2015, 04:22:17 PM How about this one: I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core. I am sorry but you can not have it both ways. This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: jdebunt on August 25, 2015, 04:24:37 PM we all just want agreement Pretty much this. Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. An agreement in this "pissing contest" would surprise me tbh. One party will cave in as the deadline grows closer if you ask me. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: Holliday on August 25, 2015, 04:35:28 PM I won't touch XT != don't touch Core
;) Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: Muhammed Zakir on August 25, 2015, 05:05:18 PM How about this one: I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core. I am sorry but you can not have it both ways. This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: ashour on August 25, 2015, 05:14:15 PM How about this one: I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core. I am sorry but you can not have it both ways. This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size. BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: Muhammed Zakir on August 25, 2015, 05:42:26 PM How about this one: I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core. I am sorry but you can not have it both ways. This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size. BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes. Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: NorrisK on August 25, 2015, 07:38:43 PM we all just want agreement Pretty much this. Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. The only middleground I can currently think of would be to gradually adjust max blocksize based on the avarage network load. Just like mining difficulty is readjusted every two weeks, the same could be done for max blocksize? Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: Mickeyb on August 25, 2015, 07:44:13 PM we all just want agreement ^^ Exactly this! Everybody is sick and tired of the uncertainty. We want the consensus so we can move forward with the development, adoption and other important stuff. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: dothebeats on August 25, 2015, 07:46:50 PM we all just want agreement If only the devs of different implementations could work around as a team, that would be great. I mean, yes, you work for different companies but still you work for the same project: bitcoin development. Other ideas might come out of your heads, why not merge your ideas together to form a much better bitcoin? If one party remains on getting too hard-headed, consensus will never be met. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 25, 2015, 08:03:59 PM Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time. Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them. The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: NorrisK on August 25, 2015, 08:09:37 PM Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time. Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them. The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks. Still if you go for that solution you are only supporting a direction that is completely biased and full of disclosures about their involvement in the sidechain business... Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: brg444 on August 25, 2015, 08:31:26 PM Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time. Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them. The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks. This assumes everyone will want to transact on sidechains which is obviously not true. More importantly not everyone will use the same sidechains and therefore transfer of coins between them necessitate large size transactions which compete for regular transactions in blocks. Don't let the trolls fool you. The sidechains business model does not, in any way, suffer from larger blocks. It is more likely it would benefit them so your Blockstream paranoia is just that, FUD. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: brg444 on August 25, 2015, 08:33:05 PM How about this one: I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core. I am sorry but you can not have it both ways. This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size. BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes. Yes maybe if you are totally ignorant about what sidechains offer then yes you could say they replace bigger blocks. Those who actually have a clue and don't have a tendency for pulling things out their ass will know this ain't the case though... Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: johnyj on August 25, 2015, 09:55:02 PM Yes, you can't have both global clearing system and super fast payment system in the same network
The banks' global clearing system do 1tpd (1 transaction per day) between two member bank, and they don't have any problem with that Fast payment system like visa or paypal can do thousands of transactions per second but they are just like exchanges, all transactions happens between the user accounts, in fact the money clearing behind that takes almost 30 days Bitcoin is already the fastest clearing system in the world Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 25, 2015, 09:57:49 PM The sidechains business model does not, in any way, suffer from larger blocks. It is more likely it would benefit them so your Blockstream paranoia is just that, FUD. We will see. It looks like we are getting bigger blocks in the new year, whether its XT or Core - doesn't matter. I imagine that without upward price pressure on transactions the sidechain adoption curve will flatten significantly. But it will happen, and I'm sure it will be successful at offering an alternative model for low value/high frequency transactions - but not at the expense of those who choose to transact directly on the chain. Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: Tstar on August 26, 2015, 06:11:00 AM what the hell is this XT ..i guess this is happening because there is no professional team in bitcoin community ?
and people dont know anything . Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: TinEye on August 26, 2015, 06:29:57 AM well many, i think don't want the community split and don't care about xt core or Qt like it was before, i'm one of those people, this debates is causing more demage than anything else, to bitcoin
at this point i'm pro anything, just resolve this quickly what the hell is this XT ..i guess this is happening because there is no professional team in bitcoin community ? and people dont know anything . it's the version of Core with the bigger block, should allow more transaction volume, if this will ever be true Title: Re: You can't have it both ways Post by: dachnik on August 26, 2015, 10:21:18 AM we all just want agreement Pretty much this. Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. The only middleground I can currently think of would be to gradually adjust max blocksize based on the avarage network load. Just like mining difficulty is readjusted every two weeks, the same could be done for max blocksize? It's a bit more complex than that. If there is an economic incentive for miners to agree on a bigger block size (to include more transactions with fees, for example), they will have little to no consideration for the ability of the non-mining full nodes to keep up with the load, as those are not explicitly incentivized to operate in the current setup. Having a static hard cap on block size (reflecting network's ability to sustain itself within its current size) is the only measure that non-mining full nodes have in order to counter potential misbehaviors by the miners. If the hard limit is chosen way higher than current technological capabilities and reached prematurely it may greatly reduce the amount of nodes participating in consensus and therefore destroy the decentralization premise that Bitcoin is standing on. |