Bitcoin Forum

After lurking enough on these forums and reading recent arguments,
I figured that raising the limit to 8MB is a our best chance at reaching consensus.

Pros:
1) Easy to implement in the situation when most of the developers disagree. Good for SW decentralization.
2) Static limit will stay the same over time while technology continues to improve. Reduces the risk of network instability.
3) Good for robustness of the system as the limit is known at any given moment and can be easily verified. Less obscurity.
4) Big enough to not let the competition gain momentum, but safe enough to not let the network fall apart.
5) What seems like big blocks today will become small blocks in the future. Should satisfy both camps.

Cons:
1) Will have to be adjusted down the road. However, a good precedent now will make it much easier than the first time.
2) Big blocks are currently untested. However, an occasional big block will likely get orphaned for any foreseeable future.

This thread is for those who are interested in contributing to the creation of the client,
which will have the new limit built in together with the activation code that enables it after a certain block (somewhere around year's end).

In the situation when development team is split into supporting two radical approaches neither of which represents the idea of original Bitcoin,
we need to form a small contingency group to help Bitcoin get through this uncertainty with the most simple and robust solution.

We need a few members in good standing who can built the software, cross check it and share it with the community.
The best coders that join this initiative will begin shaping up what can be called a Future Crew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFv7mHTf0nA) of Bitcoin.

I personally have never built the client, but will be interested in setting up the environment and doing it myself in the upcoming days and weeks.
However, me alone doing it will not solve the problem as it would require trust from the community, so we need some members with reputation here.

This Battle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHAPSs5XrSQ) needs to come to an end in order for us to move forward.
You are welcome!

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

in anycase, i'll agree to anything that means bigger blocks.

Blocks are filled with about 300kb of legitimate p2p users transactions.

You are trying to tell me we need to switch NOW to a 8000kb spam ceiling?

 ???

I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out

https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
alot of Bullshit later
More Bullshit !

this is the best part....


OMFG they're retarded

I can only hope you're trolling  ::)

May I suggest you stay in the speculation forum Adam you don't qualify anymore to participate in these discussion.

FINE!
i'll come back in 6 months and see how your Bullshit holds up when the network is faced with constantly full blocks.

What miners would continue to do without the limit is also fairly hypothetical.
We only know what they are doing now WITH the limit.
So, I suggest we keep the idea intact, but raise the value.


Thanks! :)



1MB limit 5 years ago seemed like 8MB limit today (if not bigger) and nobody complained.
The fact that not all blocks are full now means that miners filter out spam transactions on their own.

And the limit plays a different role.
It's not a spam filter, it's a "bandwidth target" for "legitimate transactions", so to speak.

By the way, I welcome both of you, guys (adamstgBit, brg444) into the team.

Do any of you have any experience building the client?

I know what it is. I was using your words.

I have no interest in your 8mb blocks thank you.

I prefer 1mb blocks for bitcoin. As there are alternative currencies we can use for some transactions. ;D

wait what did i sign up for?
...
i write C++ code all day.
but i have never complied bitcoin.
and i never plan to,
things would need to get pretty F'ing bad for me to feel the need to fork bitcoin.
i'm still confident Core will implement bigger blocks in one form or an other in due time.

It will be interesting to see, if another client {BIP} would be accepted to be submitted. We have some strong feelings

between the two groups of supporters. Will a 3rd group make a difference, or is this the 4th suggestion? I think Willie

Wonka is in there somewhere.  ;D ...I would welcome a clean client without all the added extras.  :P

A fork to a fixed 8MB blocksize isn't needed now but might be a good stopgap next year if a better blocksize increase implementation can't be made and agreed upon by consensus. You're nothing but a new account with no credentials, no coding skill, and have very poor English reading comprehension. So don't count me in on your list :)

yeah , hilarious, they think they could increase it anytime they want, yet we are struggling like two kids fighting for an ice cream forever, there is no immediate solution, the earlier we can get this thing sorted out the better

which mean getting it resolved before the need for bigger block comes true, i'm not buying this whole "we can do it later in 2 sec if needed", big BS

Yes, the txs increase around the last halving was tenfold.

Valid comments adamstgBit - like it :D

I agree.

The gist of the situation is that both camps (small blockers and big blockers) have only half the truth,
and they fight each other while standing on the wrong premises that complement those halves.

The only way forward is to recombine the valid pieces on each side and find a middle point.


Thanks for supporting the idea.

Regarding my account, that's exactly the point.
I'm not interested in taking over the development of Bitcoin.

It's just a test to see if enough members in the community are able to come together
and produce a binary that we can all then agree to use, if we want to.

(by the way, English isn't my native tongue, so if you notice any nuances in the language, you're welcome to point them out)

Since one of the main values of Bitcoin is that of entertainment, I've just found another good one!

This is bitcoiners before the hard-fork (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydkHYOtDPJE). ;D

By the way, there is some discussion on a more gentle "accelerated programmed 2-4-8" approach here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174568.0) (but please don't spam there) for those who consider a sudden jump to 8MB too steep.

Any ideas about pros & cons can be discussed in this thread.