Bitcoin Forum

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
its only natural that miners would vote for something that gives them more control.
i am not opposed to BIP100 but after reading about BIP1xx i prefer it over all other BIPs.

more info on BIP100: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

maybe it's winning by a miners point of view, but what about merchants? i remember that bitpay was pro Xt last time i've checked

Many have shown support for BIP 1xx (https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki) as well. But, obviously they are not miners...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/subject.html#10285

I love BIP1xx, but didnt hear about it till today, and it seems miners couldn't even vote for that one.

Yah... because it has not been assigned a BIP no. by Gregory Maxwell aka blockstream. They dont like proposals that increase MaxBlockSize driven by market demand.

I'm shocked.... actually not.

After miningRatlabs, you lost all your credits. I'm sure not many here know about it.

miningRatlabs?

wanna play games with the name?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=251423.0

It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

I prefer what i've called "BIP 104" in the french section : BIP 104 (http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php)

For those who don't want to go on the website :

" Assumption: This article is for those, who already understand the bitcoin protocol and aware of the block size controversy. Details of the problem statement can be found in BIP 100. Satoshi's opinion regarding block size can be found here. I will be directly going into the solution without explaining the problem in details.


Solution: Difficulty changes at every 2016 block, i.e. at every 2016 block each full node does a calculation to find the next target. We will do just another calculation here. Nodes will also calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, which is 1 MB for now. If it is found that more than 90% blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, then double the maximum block size. If not, then calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is less than 50% of the maximum block size. If it is higher than 90%, then half the maximum block size. If none of the above condition satisfies, keep the maximum block size as it is.

Please note that, while calculating the % of blocks, it is better to take into account the first 2000 of the 2016, than the whole of 2016. This helps to avoid the calculation mistake if some of the last few blocks get orphaned.


Reasoning: This solution is derived directly from the indication of the problem. If transaction volume increases, then we will naturally see bigger blocks. On the contrary, if there are not enough transaction volume, but maximum block size is high, then only few blocks may sweep the mempool. Hence, if block size is itself taken into consideration, then maximum block size can most rationally be derived. Moreover, this solution not only increases, but also decreases the maximum block size, just like difficulty. "

Read more on upalc (http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php#ixzz3k8eW9Kkw)

why dont you talk to gmaxwell and get a real bip-number assigned? anything else is just confusing.

And ignore the opinion of all of those who rely on the blockchain for their businesses AKA payment processors / market maker and all the decentralized app? wtf? This is not what I call consensus but miners takeover.

they are free to make more public statements...

my guess is they were contacted by gavin and pressured to sign a doc and they did because they say the real need to incress blocklimit and this WAS the best proposal presented to them

now that they know where miners stand,  0% support XT while 65% support BIP100

they might change there mind, in the end they get what they need a blocklimit increase

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/3649871/screen-shot-2014-09-08-at-52303-pm*1200xx1281-720-0-37.png
We are the bitcoin network,
Your businesses and users will adapt to service us
The will of the network will dissolve your individual opinion
resistance is futile

And they can mine all the coins they want. Lets see if they can convince someone to buy those coins at $240/coin. They need a market to be in profit.

This isnt ratlabs mining campaign. You can go shill somewhere else.

Any miner can fork bitcoin.  However, nobody is forced to move to that fork.  The exchanges also share power in that.  

As a hypothetical example, let's say that 100% of miners decided they were going to implement some new code that benefited them, at the expense of the exchanges.  If the exchanges and merchants banded together and announced that they were not going to move to the new fork, the miners might quickly find themselves on a worthless chain.  After the difficulty reset (which, barring yet another fork, would take quite a while), any miner who moved back to the main chain would reap the benefits of a grossly reduced difficulty.

In the real world, we all have to work together: miners, node operators, users, exchanges, payment processors and merchants. A fork in which any one of these groups stands alone would massively set back the public trust in Bitcoin.  Miners (who operate 100% on Bitcoin profits, and who have very small profit margins by definition) would be the worst hit.

i agree, but as a user,  BIP101 BIP100 and BIP1xx are all good enough more me not to care which way it goes. this is probably true for the miners, node operators, users, exchanges, payment processors and merchants. who cares as long as SOMETHING is done about this problem.

would it be good for anyone to let this thing drag on for another year?

I like the notion of having a variable maxblocksize. I couldn't find the calculation formula in BIP100, this BIP1xx formula could be merged into BIP100.

The more I think about this problem and the more time passes by, I think that consensus will be reached in the end. There will be a majority, BIP100 seems like a majority at the moment considering the support it got in such a short period of time. When we reach majority, the minority will move to the winning side. There is no way people will be left on the wrong side of the chain. There is no way in my opinion we will end up with 2 chains.

As for the OP's question, it seems to me that there is no perfect solution. Each solution has it drawbacks, we will have to chose one nevertheless.

good point...

bitcoin has a great difference... you cannot push it down the throat of the users like they are used to do with everything else, forcing people to use or buy only what they want...
bitcoin let the real users decide what they want... because the power is not centralized so you can't have a minority controlling everything and the others having to accept..

that is what is good about bitcoin and that is the most important feature it must remain: DESCENTRALIZATION

So... how far are we away from increasing the block size? Because it looks like a majority wants a block size increase. We're just arguing by how much we're going to increase the block size, right? The increase isn't that urgent, but I think that getting it out of the way before it becomes an issue is the best way to go. Imagine just starting to use bitcoin, and all your transactions take a day or more if you don't include a big miner's fee? It could be really bad for bitcoin adoption.

maybe that proposal is just too complicated and will bring too many problems with it.
iam still in favor of a smooth increase over time 2MB, 4 MB, 8MB, 14 MB...

it should be an easy design.

My own vote goes to BIP1xx as well as it addresses true market demand but given that the option to vote on that has not been set, it's a matter of the second best preference and BIP100 is the one I liked next best.
That said it's in D@T and that may also be part of the reason you didn't hear about it till today as that section tends to be kept very clean to ensure good discussion.

That said at least there was some discussion on it in reddit

I remember that time when Hearn (I think) mentioned that most miners have already agreed to their proposal.  ::)
So essentially just a few pools are left, and BIP100 will be going above 80%. The turn of events is very interesting, and this was not what I was expecting. Is there a ETA for the implementation? I've read one statement in the mailing list recently. He just said that he was working on it.

Well with all the people putting up a fuzz and the polarization between the XT loyalists and the Core Users it was bound to occur that a better proposal or set of ideas would be put forward to try and find consensus.

That said I feel like were finally starting to move forward and that if it's not BIP 100 or even BIP 101 that get adopted the elements from them that the community feels are beneficial will be moved into a new proposal and adopted at around 75% it might be possible even with BIP100 but it's a bit early to say it will be certain that this version of the current proposal will be the final adopted one.

I thought I had posted in this thread already, but it seems there are several about the same thing now.  I definitely feel like BIP100 needs tweaking.  It's not bad, I don't necessarily oppose it, but I think we can do better.

Perhaps there needs to be a balance struck somewhere between BIP1xx (https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki) and BIP100.  BIP1xx only considers the demand for block space, but BIP100 only considers what benefits the miners and not the network as a whole.  The prospect of having an entity choose a variable that primarily benefits them still doesn't sit well with me, when we can define it algorithmically like we do with everything else.  BIP100, as it currently stands, simply places too much emphasis and power on one side.

To save all the arguing, the compromise we should all agree on is to find a solution that splits the demand for block space and the demand for decentralisation 50/50.  Can we at least agree on that much?  Something that maintains an equilibrium between resources, incentive and capacity.  That way almost everyone gets what they want.  Almost.  I know some people (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157005.msg12247073#msg12247073) think the demand for block space shouldn't be considered at all and that centralisation concerns are the only thing that's important, but clearly they're not going to budge on that, so frankly they can get left behind if they aren't willing to make even the slightest concessions.  One way or another, the blocksize is increasing, it's just agreeing on how to implement it in a stable way.



I do find it amusing that when Gavin set the 75% threshold, certain individuals started crying "power grab" or "dictatorship", but now one of the other proposals is gaining momentum, suddenly those same people are okay with 75%.   ;D

Honestly, did you expect something else to happen? Humans are firstly flawed by design, then secondly by specific characters. I was expecting people to be okay with things related to Core that they were not okay with XT. Even though I've mentioned "above 80", I'm not okay with anything less than 90% (at least).