Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 01:15:52 PM



Title: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 01:15:52 PM
Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Zarathustra on January 24, 2016, 01:20:58 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42fgiv/chinese_community_has_voiced_consensus_opinion_to/


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 01:23:06 PM
Satoshi Nakamoto participated the meeting as well. He voiced his opinion that we should keep the 1MB limit that we respected since the creation of Bitcoin back in 2008.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 24, 2016, 01:31:19 PM
Satoshi Nakamoto participated the meeting as well. He voiced his opinion that we should keep the 1MB limit that we respected since the creation of Bitcoin back in 2008.

is that supposed to be a joke?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: MicroGuy on January 24, 2016, 01:33:45 PM
"We support 2MB upgrade with the precondition of 90% hash power agree."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42fggm/chinese_community_has_voiced_consensus_opinion_to/


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Herbert2020 on January 24, 2016, 01:35:21 PM
Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html

good. maybe Chinese bitcoin community with their mining power can put an end to this block size debate that is hurting bitcoin by dividing people into two groups.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 01:50:02 PM
good. maybe Chinese bitcoin community with their mining power can put an end to this block size debate that is hurting bitcoin by dividing people into two groups.

That's the beautiful thing about it. They're putting the end to the debate every 10 minutes by mining smaller than 1MB block.

And we have 394800 smaller than 1MB blocks!


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 02:01:48 PM

is that supposed to be a joke?

yes :D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 02:07:29 PM
there are only 100 nodes in china.. who cares..
the community consensus of china is small.. its more about miners.. (separate argument)

im just glad they are not going to push out >1mb blocks.. that way us 5000 full node users can upgrade to be ready for >1mb (as a buffer) way before miners start deciding to spit them out.

much better that miners wait, which is exactly what they should do to avoid their attempts getting orphaned.. rather than miners spitting them out too eagerly and them losing out

now i feel more comfortable with my larger maxblocksize because i know the chinese miners wont be spitting out lots of orphans just yet, my setting can happily sit there and be not important for a while. until everyone else upgrades and then.. and only then will miners spit out bigger blocks


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 24, 2016, 02:16:58 PM
there are only 100 nodes in china.. who cares..
the community consensus of china is small.. its more about miners.. (separate argument)

im just glad they are not going to push out >1mb blocks.. that way us 5000 full node users can upgrade to be ready for >1mb (as a buffer) way before miners start deciding to spit them out.

much better that miners wait, which is exactly what they should do to avoid their attempts getting orphaned.. rather than miners spitting them out too eagerly and them losing out

now i feel more comfortable with my larger maxblocksize because i know the chinese miners wont be spitting out lots of orphans just yet, my setting can happily sit there and be not important for a while. until everyone else upgrades and then.. and only then will miners spit out bigger blocks

why do u post fud and then attempt to post a relevant post

its like ur working for a bank, and ur attempts to raise blocksize

are hopeless, they just wont do it,


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 02:25:03 PM
why do u post fud and then attempt to post a relevant post

its like ur working for a bank, and ur attempts to raise blocksize

are hopeless, they just wont do it,

raising the blocksize is not a bad thing.. the debate about blocksize has been scrambled and meandered into the debate of WHO wrote a particular implementation..
im against R3 for many reasons and i dont care about all that bandcamp drama and motives..

all that matters is clean code that does exactly as expected..

all i care about is being ready for the 2mb blocks which consensus has shown will happen..(whether thats soon or in a year).. whenever the community as a whole is ready..
 it just needs to be implemented properly by everyone, without having any corrupt extra code that can be abused by R3 to make bankers happy.. or extra code to make bitcoin obsolete in favour of blockstreams 'liquid'


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: wikenpp on January 24, 2016, 02:31:51 PM
Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html

I really hope they do take this seriously.

China has the most interest in bitcoin these day.

Having them control the most of the bitcoin network is very dangerous. In the end people will just leave bitcoin which means they and they only will trade bitcoin.
Seeing so many investors going out, means 1 thing.

Goodbye bitcoin, and goodbye profit.

So yes I really hope they put their ignorant minds away and make a decision which will benefit the whole community and not just their pockets.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 02:35:37 PM

Goodbye bitcoin, and goodbye profit.


Bitcoin is DEAD again :D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: jt byte on January 24, 2016, 02:37:44 PM
Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html

I really hope they do take this seriously.

China has the most interest in bitcoin these day.

Having them control the most of the bitcoin network is very dangerous. In the end people will just leave bitcoin which means they and they only will trade bitcoin.
Seeing so many investors going out, means 1 thing.

Goodbye bitcoin, and goodbye profit.

So yes I really hope they put their ignorant minds away and make a decision which will benefit the whole community and not just their pockets.

You are so right.
The chinese has been arrogant in this whole discussion. Fact is, some increase of the size is needed.

Just look how micro-transactions will stop working. Isn't that one of the pillars of bitcoin?

Sending micro transactions with low fee?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 24, 2016, 02:38:28 PM
why do u post fud and then attempt to post a relevant post

its like ur working for a bank, and ur attempts to raise blocksize

are hopeless, they just wont do it,

raising the blocksize is not a bad thing.. the debate about blocksize has been scrambled and meandered into the debate of WHO wrote a particular implementation..
im against R3 for many reasons and i dont care about all that bandcamp drama and motives..

all that matters is clean code that does exactly as expected..

all i care about is being ready for the 2mb blocks which consensus has shown will happen..(whether thats soon or in a year).. whenever the community as a whole is ready..
 it just needs to be implemented properly by everyone, without having any corrupt extra code that can be abused by R3 to make bankers happy.. or extra code to make bitcoin obsolete in favour of blockstreams 'liquid'

they are facing a halving a 50% profit squeeze they will not increase the blocksize

until bitcoin hits $2000 let the market work itslef out, banks cant wreck the code

its a public ledger and the miners will inspect any code updates,

banks want cheaper transactions, they invented the problem

with fiat inflation now they are facing obosoletion its sweet justice


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 24, 2016, 02:40:12 PM
Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html

I really hope they do take this seriously.

China has the most interest in bitcoin these day.

Having them control the most of the bitcoin network is very dangerous. In the end people will just leave bitcoin which means they and they only will trade bitcoin.
Seeing so many investors going out, means 1 thing.

Goodbye bitcoin, and goodbye profit.

So yes I really hope they put their ignorant minds away and make a decision which will benefit the whole community and not just their pockets.

You are so right.
The chinese has been arrogant in this whole discussion. Fact is, some increase of the size is needed.

Just look how micro-transactions will stop working. Isn't that one of the pillars of bitcoin?

Sending micro transactions with low fee?

no use litecoin, bitcoin is for stronger protection

that being said litecoin is pretty damn strong also


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 02:41:51 PM
Just look how micro-transactions will stop working. Isn't that one of the pillars of bitcoin?

No - it never was - back in 2012 Gavin was interviewed along with Amir and it was Amir who stated that Bitcoin was suitable for micro-transactions and immediately Gavin chimed in that it actually was not.

The Satoshi design is never going to be suitable for micro-transactions (unless you want to use far less secure alts of course).

Seriously - once the block reward has dwindled to very little what incentive do miners have to continue to mine if the tx fees are ridiculously low?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: TastyChillySauce00 on January 24, 2016, 02:42:57 PM
im sure bitcoin price will go down because demand<supply,


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 02:44:13 PM
Here we go. The epic shitstorm of our time.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 24, 2016, 02:47:38 PM
Here we go. The epic shitstorm of our time.

its wat we call a shitstorm in a teacup

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/storm-in-a-teacup


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: European Central Bank on January 24, 2016, 02:53:19 PM

Seriously - once the block reward has dwindled to very little what incentive do miners have to continue to mine if the tx fees are ridiculously low?


Aren't we supposed to have hundreds of millions of users by then? That takes care of the incentive thing.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 02:56:29 PM
Bankers are shitting their pants over the idea that millions of peoples around the globe are going to install the original
program made by Satoshi Nakamoto, no matter what brand (Classic Core, XT).

:D :D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:01:52 PM
Aren't we supposed to have hundreds of millions of users by then? That takes care of the incentive thing.

If we tried to scale Bitcoin by just increasing the block size then basically only a few huge data centers in the world would be able to even verify such gigantic blocks in ten minutes.

So no (you have clearly misunderstood how Bitcoin works).

If you support decentralisation then you should not be supporting huge block sizes.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: MicroGuy on January 24, 2016, 03:09:46 PM
Bankers are shitting their pants over the idea that millions of peoples around the globe are going to install the original
program made by Satoshi Nakamoto, no matter what brand (Classic Core, XT).

:D :D

Wrong. Bankers are praying to the gods that the community is divided so it can be weakened and overtaken.

For Bitcoin to survive, we need to fix the problem at its Core! We must not tolerate businesses influencing core developers. This is the key. The community needs to support the developers not coinbase and blocksteam.

Wal-Mart doesn't tell Apple how to design iPhones, and Shoe Carnival doesn't control Nike. Jesus Christ, Brian Armstrong doesn't even know the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork. Why is he even talking about what core should do?

http://puu.sh/mH1Hv/ec10d6363b.png (http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork)

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 03:10:50 PM

Wrong. Bankers are praying to the gods that the community is divided so it can be weakened and overtaken.

In this case, they need to open their  wallets a little bit. I ain't gonna shill for free.
:D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
small block lovers think that blocks need to be 200mb(doomsday) tomorrow or 1mb..
they never see the lack of logic in their own mindset. that growth can be slow and gentle and managable..

simply waiting for the bottlenecks, instead of expanding in small amounts to allow for a buffer of safety. is just as bad as jumping to far ahead..
thats why i hate both the 8mb proposal and forcing to stick to 1mb proposal.. so 2mb seems by the majority of people to be a safe balance..
(if you ignore the motives of the band camps, and just concentrate on the code and utility it offers)

when 2mb rule finally becomes consensus, blocks wont be 1.999mb right from inception.. instead they will be EG: 1.005mb and have the 0.995 space as a buffer to grow slowly..
just like the may 2013 saga.. blocks were not suddenly 0.99mb.. causing 3 years of 52gb chain growth(156gb).. it was slow and steady growth

and over weeks, months the miners will add a few extra transactions per block, incrementally when they can handle the processing time without causing them to lose out chances to be first to solve a block..

and when block rewards do shrink, again not over night but over a couple decades.. technology (storage space and badwidth) will be soo much better also.

i agree if blocks were 200mb TODAY, only data centers would cope. but we are not talking about today.. but instead over 20 years, which we may have 200x increase of population (from 3million to the utopian dream of 600million) we would too also have not 5000 nodes distributed but 1,000,000.(based on a small percentage of dedicated bitcoiners wanting to be full nodes)

and the cost of each of these fullnodes equipment would be $200 for a 200tb hard drive separately a 500mb internet connection will be the norm..
after all. 20 years ago ADSL was not really a thing and the average computer hard drive was $100 for 3gb storage..
alot has changed in the last 20 years, and alot will change in the next 20 years..

so will all you small blockers stop the rhetoric that we shouldnt grow at all.. or that there should only be one solution that nly blockstream should have rights to implement. there should be many solutions and there should be growth in many ways..

im getting sick of the mantra that is meandering off the topic of a simple 2mb increase. to shout out propoganda stuff about data centers and banks and killing off bitcoin in favour of "liquid".

if everyone just concentrated on just the 2mb increase, of clean code that has no other features that can be abused or used to kill off bitcoin.. then things could move forward.

so the plan should be the user community sets the 2mb limit as a buffer, while miners still only make blocks below1mb.. just like the 1mb was a buffer while miners were only making 500k blocks in 2013.. then later.. miners start to make 1.005b when they are happy their blocks wont be delayed or orphaned.. slowly increasing when the lag of a few seconds is comfortable to cope with


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: MicroGuy on January 24, 2016, 03:28:50 PM
if everyone just concentrated on just the 2mb increase, of clean code that has no other features that can be abused or used to kill off bitcoin.. then things could move forward

Everyone in their right mind knows that a 2MB hardfork is the right move at this juncture.

But until the business politics and corruption are exposed (and corrected), core will continue its perpetual circle jerk.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 03:30:32 PM
sure franky1 but what about this, when block size is bumped, what about the spam aka "stress test"?

Blocks filled with 8MB one guy sending coin back to himself could really hurt Bitcoin because the blockchain would grow much faster,
it will take a long to synchronize or catch up and people archives will be filled with useless dust.

I think we should be extremely careful about this and it is not sin to keep system same as before because it worked for 7 years?

I actually don't care about the block size I'm just here for the drama and fun with these paid posters. I hope they have a happy time
with us and wish them luck maybe when they laid out they get a new banker to post for.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:30:52 PM
Everyone in their right mind knows that a 2MB hardfork is the right move at this juncture.

But until the business politics and corruption is exposed (and corrected), core will continue its perpetual circle jerk.

Seriously - you stoop to saying that anyone else is "not in their right mind".

Why not actually try and argue about things technically rather than acting like a shill?

I have already shown that @franky1 is a fraud as he can't prove he can code for shit (he can still try and show us his amazing VB "Bitcoin for dummies" code to prove me wrong whenever he likes).

So I would not recommend paying any attention whatsoever to his "technical arguments" (they are just nonsense being spouted by someone that doesn't even understand how Bitcoin works).


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: maku on January 24, 2016, 03:32:02 PM
Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, many Chinese BTC companies including AntPool/Bitmain, Bither, HaoBTC, BTC123, BTCKan

Source: http://8btc.com/thread-28405-1-1.html

good. maybe Chinese bitcoin community with their mining power can put an end to this block size debate that is hurting bitcoin by dividing people into two groups.
2MB blocksize is the answer for now, it will be good for 2 years top, and then what? Will they agree to increase blocksize progressively or by constant number?
Seeing how Chinese miners not long time ago were against even 2MB upgrade I am not convinced.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:34:01 PM
2MB blocksize is the answer for now, it will be good for 2 years top, and then what? Will they agree to increase blocksize progressively or by constant number?

It is not the answer for now at all - it is an attempt at a hostile takeover of an open source project.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: MicroGuy on January 24, 2016, 03:36:28 PM
Everyone in their right mind knows that a 2MB hardfork is the right move at this juncture.

But until the business politics and corruption is exposed (and corrected), core will continue its perpetual circle jerk.

Seriously - you stoop to saying that anyone else is "not in their right mind".

Why not actually try and argue about things technically rather than acting like a shill?

Satoshi never intended for the blocksize to be a consensus rule. This should have been fixed years ago as a routine maintenance patch. We need to keep the code as simple as possible, the changes as conservative as possible. I have already made the arguments over and over.

The reason core doesn't move to 2MB now is because it would be detrimental to blocksteam. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 03:37:40 PM

I have already shown that @franky1 is a fraud as he can't prove he can code for shit (he can still try and show us his amazing VB "Bitcoin for dummies" code to prove me wrong whenever he likes).


no i asked you a question and you meandered off topic. i gave you a slice of code which you took out of context without understanding or seeing how it is used elsewhere.. (you failed)
 you then went on a rant about the code.. instead of just answering the question.. simply because you couldnt answer the direct question and prefered to end the subject in some weird manner that had nothing to do with the ontopic question..

maybe you need to start staying ontopic and answering questions technically. after all you are not attacking what i said about my post above about technology in 20 years etc.., you prefer to not talk about the ontopic stuff and just call me and other people shills..

goodluck in your life.


as for the hostile takeover..
lets imagine no one downloaded classic or XT.. and kicked R3 to the curb..
end of story, greedy bankers lose
and then luke_jr made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets YOU made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets adam back made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets jeff garzig made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.

would that too be a hostile take over? or just moving forward and allowing decentralized implementations


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:39:45 PM
Yes. I'm saying that's the right move. Satoshi never intended for the blocksize to be a consensus rule. We need to keep the code as simple as possible, the changes as conservative as possible. I have already made the arguments over and over.

Satoshi left - and he also left a number of flaws and issues with Bitcoin that he didn't have any answers for - so please stop your appeals to authority with him already.

The reason core doesn't move to 2MB now is because it would be detrimental to blocksteam. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

That is not the reason at all - as has been explained the "simple fix" of increasing block sizes will actually end up centralising the mining more than anything else as the time require to just verify all of the sigs will easily take more than 10 minutes unless you have extraordinary hardware.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:41:27 PM
maybe you need to start staying ontopic and answering questions technically. after all you are not attacking what i said about my post above about technology in 20 years etc.., you prefer to not talk about the ontopic stuff and just call me and other people shills..

Post "the real code" then @franky1 - quite frankly I am sick of your nonsense.

BTW - I have received PMs from quite a few people thanking me for "calling you out" for being someone who says they can write code yet is unable to actually produce any such code that they have written.

(so you are not getting away with it as you might have hoped)


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 03:43:58 PM
blah blah blah shill attack
blah blah blah reputation attack
blah blah blah boring offtopic waffle
blah blah blah ignore ontopic questions

so again:
as for the hostile takeover..
lets imagine no one downloaded classic or XT.. and kicked R3 to the curb..
end of story, greedy bankers lose
and then luke_jr made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets YOU made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets adam back made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
lets jeff garzig made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.

would that too be a hostile take over? or just moving forward and allowing decentralized implementations


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: bargainbin on January 24, 2016, 03:45:27 PM
... increasing block sizes will actually end up centralising the mining more than anything else ...

How is this still a thing, when 9 guys control >90% of the hashpower?

Also how do people manage to equate "China no longer having a huge advantage because cheap/subsidized power" and "mining centralization"?
In light of most hashpower being in China?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:46:38 PM
would that too be a hostile take over? or just moving forward and allowing decentralized implementations

There is a very good reason that the people you listed (apart from the last one) don't do that.

That is because they know it is really of no benefit to the future of Bitcoin just to increase the block size.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:47:37 PM
... increasing block sizes will actually end up centralising the mining more than anything else ...

How is this still a thing, when 9 guys control >90% of the hashpower?

If you are talking about pools then you should know that the hashers can change pools at any time.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 03:48:42 PM

Satoshi never intended for the blocksize to be a consensus rule. This should have been fixed years ago as a routine maintenance patch. We need to keep the code as simple as possible, the changes as conservative as possible. I have already made the arguments over and over.

The reason core doesn't move to 2MB now is because it would be detrimental to blocksteam. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

You've been hired? Wink wink :D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:49:24 PM
BTW - notice that @franky1 *still refuses to show us his code*.

Does anyone on this forum actually believe the guy *can code*?

(other than function declarations in VB)


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: bargainbin on January 24, 2016, 03:50:51 PM
... increasing block sizes will actually end up centralising the mining more than anything else ...

How is this still a thing, when 9 guys control >90% of the hashpower?

If you are talking about pools then you should know that the hashers can change pools at any time.

They can, but they don't. What's your point? You also missed a chunk:
Quote
Also how do people manage to equate "China no longer having a huge advantage because cheap/subsidized power" and "mining centralization"?
In light of most hashpower being in China?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 03:52:48 PM

There is a very good reason that the people you listed (apart from the last one) don't do that.

That is because they know it is really of no benefit to the future of Bitcoin just to increase the block size.


ok an answer.. finally..
but is there anything bad with having several implementations that do the same job released by different people??

EG spring 2016
luke_jr made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
YOU made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
adam back made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
jeff garzig made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.
Gmaxwell made an exact replica line for line of core-0.12 but with the blocksize being set to 2mb.. no other dirty code.

and then
summer 2016
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg and adams previous version)

would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:53:12 PM
They can, but they don't. What's your point?

Then blame the hashers rather than the pools.

As there are far more hashers than there are pools you'd think that the hashers would perhaps care more about decentralising - but if they don't then there isn't much you can do to fix it.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 03:54:55 PM
I wonder if this C++ code does qualify me for the honorary Satoshi Nakamoto title  ;D


Code:

// Copyright (c) 2016 Satoshi Nakamoto
// Distributed under the MIT/X11 software license, see the accompanying
// file license.txt or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.


#include <stdio.h>
#include <gmp.h>
#include<math.h>
/* make sure to invoke gcc with -lgmp */


// NEVER i repeat NEVER use a dead big number variable

struct res {
int rh; // height
// each return from recursion increases h by one
// deepest solution returns zero
// no solution returns SOLUTIONNOTFOUND

//logarithm of no. of variables in the level having the most variables)
double e; // maximum entropy per round

long  unsigned long p0;
long  unsigned long p1;
long  unsigned long p2;
};

void nxt(mpz_t r, mpz_t a) {
mpz_t s,t;
mpz_init(s);
mpz_init(t);
mpz_sub_ui(s, a, 1); // bcsub
mpz_mul(t, a, s); // bcmul
mpz_div_2exp(r, t, 1); // bcdiv 2
mpz_clear(s);
mpz_clear(t);
}

int
compare_doubles (const double da, const double db)
{

  return (da > db) - (da < db);
}

static int SUCCESS = 0;
static int SOLUTIONNOTFOUND = 9999999;

//static struct res oracle;


static long  unsigned long longlongbitsminus1;

// h .. number of already pushed hashes to signature
// s .. NOT the number of objects in this layer  !!! see d
// e .. the already signed entropy (bits)
// d .. how many divisions by two need to be performed on s to get actual number of objects in this layer
// d .. This is optimalization to save memory
// b .. this is burst. during a burst (>0) cannot do growth rounds, only merkle reduce rounds
// .... this is an optimalization because merkle reduce rounds tend to appear in bursts

// m .. the total maximum length of message that needs to be signed
static long double messagedigest;
static int burstdefault;

static double maxentropyperlevel = 0.0;

// ooo and sticky are related to burst
// they activate bursts

static int beancounter = 0;

//int debug() {
// return oracle.rh != SOLUTIONNOTFOUND;
//}

//void nextoracle() {
//
/// oracle.p0 /= 2;
// oracle.p0 |= oracle.p1 << longlongbitsminus1;
// oracle.p1 /= 2;
// oracle.p1 |= oracle.p2 << longlongbitsminus1;
// oracle.p2 /= 2;
//
//}

struct res findt(int h, mpz_t s, long  double e, unsigned d, int ooo, int stick) {
beancounter++;

// int oracbit = oracle.p0 & 1;
// nextoracle();

struct res x;
double n = 0.;


if (h < 0) {
// maximum hashes heuristic cap exceeded

// Terminate without a solution

x.rh = SOLUTIONNOTFOUND;
x.e = 0;
x.p0 = 0;
x.p1 = 0;
x.p2 = 0;
return x;
}

int mustreducetopk = 0;
int canreducebemoreorfour = 0;

if ((e >= messagedigest) ) { // must
mustreducetopk = 1;
}

// here I must compare number of variables with the cached division
// to see if we have less than 8 variables in this level
//(after level with 8 variables comes a level with 4 variables-the public key level)
// in this case the algorithm will terminate and return a valid solution(iff all entropy is signed)
unsigned long int cacheddiv = 8;
cacheddiv <<= d;

int cmp = mpz_cmp_ui(s, cacheddiv);

if (cacheddiv == 0) {

// OVERFLOW OF DIVIDER
// Terminate without a solution here?

int terminateaftertoomanymerklereductions = 0;

if (terminateaftertoomanymerklereductions){

x.rh = SOLUTIONNOTFOUND;
x.e = 0;
x.p0 = 0;
x.p1 = 0;
x.p2 = 0;
return x;
}


// approximate double based compute

double huge = mpz_get_d (s);

double ex = 8.0 * exp2 ((double)d);



cmp = compare_doubles(huge, ex);


}




if ((cmp == 0) || (cmp > 0)) {
canreducebemoreorfour = 1;
}



if (mustreducetopk && !canreducebemoreorfour) {

// solution found. 0
x.rh = SUCCESS;
x.e = 0;
x.p0 = 0;
x.p1 = 0;
x.p2 = 0;
return x;
}

if (mustreducetopk || canreducebemoreorfour) {

// no entropy signed when reducing
n = 0;

// // print
/// mpz_out_str(stdout, 10, b);  putchar('\n');
/// printf("%lf \n", n);


// counter of the burst
int ppp = ooo-1;
if (ppp <= 0) {
ppp = 0;
}


// if ((oracle.rh == SOLUTIONNOTFOUND) || (oracbit == 1)) {

// recurse
x = findt(h-1, s, e+n, d+1, ppp, 1);

// } else {
// x.rh = SOLUTIONNOTFOUND;
// x.e = 0;
// x.p0 = 0;
// x.p1 = 0;
// x.p2 = 0;
// }

// add this level to total length
x.rh++;

// mark 1 bit
x.p2 *= 2;
x.p2 |= x.p1 >> longlongbitsminus1;
x.p1 *= 2;
x.p1 |= x.p0 >> longlongbitsminus1;
x.p0 *= 2;
x.p0++;


if (mustreducetopk) {
return x;
}


} else {
x.rh = SOLUTIONNOTFOUND;
x.e = 0;
x.p0 = 0;
x.p1 = 0;
x.p2 = 0;
}

// if not burst
if (ooo == 0) {
mpz_t b, t;


mpz_init(b);

struct res y;

//
// printf("~~~~%i ~~~~ \n",beancounter);

// explode
if (d > 0) {
// here i apply the cached merkle reduce rounds



// if (debug()) {
// // print
// mpz_out_str(stdout, 10, s);  putchar('\n');
// }



mpz_init(t);


if (1) {
mpz_t xx;
mpz_init(xx);
mpz_t gg;
mpz_init(gg);
mpz_t oo;
mpz_init(oo);
mpz_t pp;
mpz_init(pp);

mpz_set_ui(xx, 1);
mpz_mul_2exp(gg, xx, d);
mpz_sub_ui(oo,gg,1);

// if (debug()) {
// // print
// mpz_out_str(stdout, 10, oo);  putchar('\n');
// }


mpz_add(pp,oo,s);



mpz_div_2exp(t, pp, d);


// mpz_div_2exp(t, s, d);

// don't forget to free the big number
mpz_clear(pp);
// don't forget to free the big number
mpz_clear(oo);
// don't forget to free the big number
mpz_clear(gg);
// don't forget to free the big number
mpz_clear(xx);

} else {
mpz_div_2exp(t, s, d);
}


// if (debug()) {
// // print
// mpz_out_str(stdout, 10, t);  putchar('\n');
// }

// here I calculate the entropy from t
n = (mpz_get_d (t));

} else {

// print
// mpz_out_str(stdout, 10, s);  putchar('\n');

// here I calculate the entropy from t
n = (mpz_get_d (s));

}

// if (debug()) {
// // Print entropy
// printf("|%i|%lf \n", beancounter,n);
// }


n = log2(n);


// explode
if (d > 0) {
nxt(b, t);
mpz_clear(t);
} else {
nxt(b, s);
}

// print
// mpz_out_str(stdout, 10, b);  putchar('\n');

// here I calculate the entropy from b
n = (mpz_get_d (b));
// if (debug()) {
// // Print entropy
// printf("|%i|%lf \n", beancounter,n);
// }
n = log2(n);


// while (1) {
// sleep(1);
// }

// check if it exceeds the per-round entropy treshold cap
if ((n > maxentropyperlevel) && (maxentropyperlevel != 0.0)) {




// don't forget to free the big number
mpz_clear(b);

// don't do this
return x;
}


// // print

// printf("%lf \n", n);


// burst counter
int ppp = ooo;
if (stick == 1) {
ppp = burstdefault;
}

// If x branch was successful, this branch should not be longer.
if (x.rh != SOLUTIONNOTFOUND) {
h = x.rh+1;
}

// // print
// printf("|%i|%lf \n", beancounter,n);

// if ((oracle.rh == SOLUTIONNOTFOUND) || (oracbit == 0)) {
// // recurse
y = findt(h-1, b, e+n, 0, ppp, stick);
// } else {
// y.rh = SOLUTIONNOTFOUND;
// y.e = 0;
// y.p0 = 0;
// y.p1 = 0;
// y.p2 = 0;
// }

// free big number
mpz_clear(b);

// just check if solution
if (y.rh == SOLUTIONNOTFOUND) {
return x;
}

// add this level to total length
y.rh++;

if (y.e < n) {

y.e = n;

// // print
// printf("|%i|%lf \n", beancounter,n);


// while (1) {
// sleep(1);
// }

}


// mark 0 bit
y.p2 *= 2;
y.p2 |= y.p1 >> longlongbitsminus1;
y.p1 *= 2;
y.p1 |= y.p0 >> longlongbitsminus1;
y.p0 *= 2;



// get choice leading to shorter. Long is bad
if (x.rh > y.rh) {
x = y;

// get choice leading to less max entropy per level. Big is bad
} else if ((x.rh == y.rh) && (x.e > y.e)) {
x = y;
}

return x;

}

return x;
}

int roundsform_heuristics(double m) {
double room = 10.; // 10 rounds more than expected allowed

// m160bit ..  84rounds ~~ +10
// m256bit .. 133rounds ~~ +10

return (int)((m * 0.510416667) + 2.333333333 + room);
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
// get machine word
longlongbitsminus1 = ((8*sizeof(unsigned long long))-1);
printf("LLsizem1:%Lu\n",longlongbitsminus1);


  int h;  h = 0;



//  mpz_out_str(stdout, 10, b);  putchar('\n');




struct res r;





long double m = 128.0;
long double md = 8.0;


int burstd = 0;
int burst = 15;

double elimit = 0.;
double elimitd = 0.;

// load the command line parameters
if (argc == 7) {
sscanf(argv[1], "%Lf", &m);
sscanf(argv[2], "%Lf", &md);

sscanf(argv[3], "%i", &burst);
sscanf(argv[4], "%i", &burstd);

sscanf(argv[5], "%lf", &elimit);
sscanf(argv[6], "%lf", &elimitd);
}


// predict rounds using heuristic
h = roundsform_heuristics(m);
h = 0xffff;



printf("\nINPUT: Digest M=%Lf; Mdelta=%Lf ; HeuriMaxHashes X=%i ;"
"  BURST=%i Bdelta=%i ; logLimit %lf logLdelta %lf \n\n",m,md,h,burst, burstd, elimit, elimitd);



// solve slightly different many times over the night
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1000;i++) {


  mpz_t b;  mpz_init(b);
  mpz_set_str(b, "4", 10); // the 10 represents the radix

// real run
// oracle.rh = SOLUTIONNOTFOUND;
maxentropyperlevel = elimit;
burstdefault = burst;
messagedigest = m;
r = findt(h,b,0,0,0,0);
// oracle = r;

// // also verify
// findt(h,b,0,0,0,0);


mpz_clear(b);


if (r.rh == SOLUTIONNOTFOUND) {
printf("SOLUTION WAS NOT FOUND PROBABLY BECAUSE HEURISTIC LIMIT IS TOO LOW: %i\n ", h);
printf("try giving more room to the heuristics\n");

return 0;
}

// print the solution
printf("BITS of Message Digest: %Lf SHORTEST HASHES: %i, burst=%i , e=%lf , PATH",m, r.rh, burstdefault, r.e);

// print the algorithm bitmap (solution)
if (r.p2 == 0) {
if (r.p1 == 0) {
printf("  %Lx | %Lx %Lx %Lx\n\n\n", r.p0, r.p2, r.p1, r.p0);
} else {
printf("  %Lx%Lx | %Lx %Lx %Lx\n\n\n", r.p1, r.p0, r.p2, r.p1, r.p0);
}} else {
printf("  %Lx%Lx%Lx | %Lx %Lx %Lx\n\n\n", r.p2, r.p1, r.p0, r.p2, r.p1, r.p0);
}

if ((md == 0.) && (burstd == 0) && (elimitd == 0.)) {

return 0;
}


// solve slightly different again

m += md;
if (h != 0xffff) {
h = roundsform_heuristics(m);
}
burst += burstd;
elimit += elimitd;
}

  return 0;

}



Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 03:56:08 PM
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg)

would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??

You seem to imply that we *need* the 2MB blocks ASAP - yet the evidence for that is non-existent (of course it is being pushed by supporters of those trying to rest control of the project from Bitcoin Core).

If Bitcoin Core ends up supporting 2MB blocks it will only be to stop Gavin and others from taking over the project.

At the end of the day they might be forced into doing this but I really don't think that this is a sensible way forward.



Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: bargainbin on January 24, 2016, 03:59:31 PM
They can, but they don't. What's your point?

Then blame the hashers rather than the pools.

As there are far more hashers than there are pools you'd think that the hashers would perhaps care more about decentralising - but if they don't then there isn't much you can do to fix it.

I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm merely describing the way things are, i.e. centralized.
Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow).


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 04:01:10 PM
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg)

would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??

You seem to imply that we *need* the 2MB blocks ASAP - yet the evidence for that is non-existent (of course it is being pushed by supporters of trying to rest control of the project from Bitcoin Core).

If Bitcoin Core ends up supporting 2MB blocks it will only be to stop Gavin and others from taking over the project.

At the end of the day they might be forced into doing this but I really don't think that this is a sensible way forward.



blah blah blah.. more rhetoric about blaming banker motives..
i already said a few posts ago,, classic and xt wont be downloaded and ignore the whole gavin/banker motives

is there a hostile take over if all the developers of blockstream and many people not related to bankers all wanted 2mb.. and they all released independant versions that were all clean code and able to talk to eachother.. thus making the motives redundant..

please limit your reply to only talking about the general community of 3million people who do not have banking motives.. who just want some buffer space in blocks, instead of this crappy high fee priority shit due to lack of buffer space


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 04:01:24 PM

I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm merely describing the way things are, i.e. centralized.
Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow).

Satoshi Nakamoto is here in my living room and he disagrees with you ;D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 04:02:53 PM
Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow).

It is not ludicrous at all - in order to verify a block (as a full node) you need to verify every single signature.

Those operations are not so cheap (my current laptop is actually unable to even keep up with the blockchain because it is simply not fast enough).

So the more signature verification operations that are required (which is what you get with bigger blocks) the more potential nodes you are going to lose (as they will simply be unable to keep up).

Is this so hard to understand?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 24, 2016, 04:04:31 PM
is there a hostile take over if all the developers of blockstream and many people not related to bankers all wanted 2mb..

Of course not - but this is simply not what is happening - so a rather pointless hypothetical.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 04:06:25 PM
is there a hostile take over if all the developers of blockstream and many people not related to bankers all wanted 2mb..

Of course not - but this is simply not what is happening - so a rather pointless hypothetical.


so by that logic.. your only negative of 2mb is the motives of bankers.. and if we dissolved that threat.. you would be happy for a 2mb increase? as it wontdestroy bitcoin

oh and dont rant about
all blocks will be 1.999mb and the chain will bloat up by 104gb a year
or that miners will take 2x the time to process transactions.
or that bandwidth wont cope.

as miners will not be throwing 1.999mb blocks into the ecosystem right from inception.. they would start slowly and increment up when comfortable.. just like in 2013


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: bargainbin on January 24, 2016, 04:07:14 PM

I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm merely describing the way things are, i.e. centralized.
Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow).

Satoshi Nakamoto is here in my living room and he disagrees with you ;D
:o
Then the gentlemen touching my butt is an importer?! He seemed so honest...


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 04:09:09 PM

Then the gentlemen touching my butt is an importer?! He seemed so honest...

You seem stressed. Don't you want to visit the restroom? ;D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: bargainbin on January 24, 2016, 04:09:19 PM
Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow).

It is not ludicrous at all - in order to verify a block (as a full node) you need to verify every single signature.

Those operations are not so cheap (my current laptop is actually unable to even keep up with the blockchain because it is simply not fast enough).

So the more signature verification operations that are required (which is what you get with bigger blocks) the more potential nodes you are going to lose (as they will simply be unable to keep up).

Is this so hard to understand?

Sorry, why should I be concerned about potential non-mining nodes in China again?


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 04:11:50 PM
Can't stump the Trump.
Can't crash the p2p electronic cash.

;D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: pogress on January 24, 2016, 04:19:23 PM
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg)

would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??

You seem to imply that we *need* the 2MB blocks ASAP - yet the evidence for that is non-existent (of course it is being pushed by supporters of those trying to rest control of the project from Bitcoin Core).

If Bitcoin Core ends up supporting 2MB blocks it will only be to stop Gavin and others from taking over the project.

At the end of the day they might be forced into doing this but I really don't think that this is a sensible way forward.


BlockStream <> Bitcoin. I understand BlockStream will try to do whatever to keep control over Bitcoin, but giving control to just one group is not in Bitcoin interest. Free market has to decide, not just BlockStream and their flawed vision of Bitcoin as just settlement layer with blocksize limit artifficaly restricted resulting in high fees and demand for other off chain BlockStream services - no thank you, it is the opposite vision of original Bitcoin project and BlockStream and their Bitcoin Core puppet has no right to monopolize Bitcoin.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 04:21:21 PM
This thread seems to attract a people with a certain kind of opinion. I wonder what may be the reason.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 24, 2016, 04:27:39 PM
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg)

would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??

You seem to imply that we *need* the 2MB blocks ASAP - yet the evidence for that is non-existent (of course it is being pushed by supporters of trying to rest control of the project from Bitcoin Core).

If Bitcoin Core ends up supporting 2MB blocks it will only be to stop Gavin and others from taking over the project.

At the end of the day they might be forced into doing this but I really don't think that this is a sensible way forward.



blah blah blah.. more rhetoric about blaming banker motives..
i already said a few posts ago,, classic and xt wont be downloaded and ignore the whole gavin/banker motives

is there a hostile take over if all the developers of blockstream and many people not related to bankers all wanted 2mb.. and they all released independant versions that were all clean code and able to talk to eachother.. thus making the motives redundant..

please limit your reply to only talking about the general community of 3million people who do not have banking motives.. who just want some buffer space in blocks, instead of this crappy high fee priority shit due to lack of buffer space


so the bankers dont want to be known as bankers anymore lets call them tulips then


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: watashi-kokoto on January 24, 2016, 04:33:06 PM
tulips seems to be stressed ;D


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 24, 2016, 04:37:31 PM
so the bankers dont want to be known as bankers anymore lets call them tulips then

im saying if we as a community of millions of people just kept to clean code that has no hidden features that bankers could use against the community of millions of people and that there were many source of the same clean code to debunk the blockstream dictator debate aswell..

basically quashing all the nefarious motive rumours about both bandcamps.. and concentrate on the code for the benefit of the whole community. (rather then ignoring code and arguing about band camps motives)



Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 25, 2016, 01:28:19 AM
Unfortunately when advocates such as yourself can't actually even read the code then it is easy to see why populists pushing for bigger blocks are getting so much attention.

I would suggest that you watch the recent interviews with Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell and try to learn something (but I know that either you are just too lazy to do that or it would most likely be too difficult for you to grasp anyway).

Technology isn't always so simple (if it was then we would have no need for engineers).


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 25, 2016, 01:29:27 AM
Unfortunately when advocates such as you can't actually even read the code then it is easy to see why populists pushing for bigger blocks are getting so much attention.

I would suggest you watch the interviews with Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell and try and learn something (but I know that either you are just too lazy to do that or it would most likely be too difficult for you to grasp).

Technology isn't always so simple (if it was then we would have no need for engineers).

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit


Even I can read that.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 25, 2016, 01:31:21 AM
It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit


Even I can read that.

Exactly my point - and if you keep on repeating that change (getting bigger and bigger) then finally the amount of time to even verify all the signatures in your megablocks in 10 minutes will be beyond the capabilities of 99% of the computing hardware available.

Now that would be centralisation!


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2016, 01:43:52 AM
blah blah blah more reputation attacks and no real content

by the way i have seen all their stuff, i read the roadmap, i read every bip, i have talked to dev's and i have put all that stuff into real life scenario's using logic.
im not a band camp advocate for gavincoin or blockstream. i just want bitcoin to have a bigger buffer to allow growth.

but your endless reputation attacks are meaningless waffle that just distract people from the code debate.. which also means your not using the logic part of your brain and instead using the distraction techniques to delay growth discussions.

the funny thing is that when people point out the code needs debating, instead of answering the question you try to debunk them as knowing anything.. again your distraction technique.

you prefer to avoid questions that might harm blockstreams plans.

i do hope you enjoy your "liquid" coins you have probably been promised in exchange for defending blockstream endlessly

have a nice day


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2016, 01:46:03 AM

Exactly my point - and if you keep on repeating that change (getting bigger and bigger) then finally the amount of time to even verify all the signatures in your megablocks in 10 minutes will be beyond the capabilities of 99% of the computing hardware available.

Now that would be centralisation!


doomsday myth
blocks wont be 1.999mb straight off the bat.. stop that rhetoric and use logic
miners will know that processing time increases with every tx they add beyond 1mb.. so they would start slowly with something like 1.005mb and grow only when comfortable.. leaving the other 0.995 space as a buffer for expansion when they are comfortable that they can cope

then in a few years another blocklimit rise can be debated.. you act as if there is 8000 tx's that need to be filled in 10 minutes instantly.. and then another myth that bitcoin doessnt need to expand..

how about use logic and see the middle ground.. expand the rules to allow for a buffer to not be needed instantly, but happily exist to allow gentle growth

just like the saga in 2013. blocks didnt suddenly become 0.999mb over night..

and if you think that the general community cant cope with even 2mb.. then tell that to 30million netflix subscribers who happily stream more then 1gb an hour


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: CIYAM on January 25, 2016, 02:01:56 AM
Actually I think I'm just going to ignore you and your merry men and get on with more interesting stuff like programming.

Unfortunately some people here are just extremely determined to "rant and shout" in multiple topics in the hope that it will garner support and I am not one of those.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2016, 02:04:21 AM
Actually I think I'm just going to ignore you and your merry men and get on with more interesting stuff like programming.

Unfortunately some people here are just extremely determined to "rant and shout" in multiple topics in the hope that it will garner support and I am not one of those.


enjoy your liquid coins. im sure they will make you rich once you destroy bitcoin


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: Quantus on January 25, 2016, 02:27:27 AM
I continue to believe its imperative that the block size remain at 1MB until transaction fees plus the rapidly decreasing block rewards are enough to ensure our mining community is incentivized enough to be continuously reinvesting in the best state of the art hardware to maintain our network security. This is a short term situation that will diminish as the user base grows (smaller fees but more transaction fees) and our network bandwidth and latency improves with technological advancements over the coming years.  Keeping the limit in place is the safest way forward however I admit higher fees will push micro transactions off the network, this will be a huge blow but we will survive. I believe in time we can raise the block size manually with hard forks with universal community support if we do it in small 5% increments only when fees become detrimental to adoption until the day comes when we have so many users even a 1Cent fee is enough to ensure our security but that day is still far, far off in a unknowable future.  


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: johnyj on January 25, 2016, 05:29:41 AM
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive

The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2016, 05:47:45 AM
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive

The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical

even with a 2mb limit.. miners dont need to fill that limit..

EG at the moment with 1mb
miners let in 500k-700k of fee paying transactions. and then a handful of free transactions if generous..

some miners (antpool) have been known to prefer to only fill 200k or 700k per block. i really dont see why people still think that 2mb limit means 1.99mb of data for every block in some doomsday scenario..

so, back to the 2mb blocklimit.
miners that want to add more transactions will have 1.005mb of data as their first toe in the water test on processing times.. and when they are comfortable to process transactions without much lag compared to competitors, they will slowly increase adding a few extra transactions to test how fast they can process data.

there is no 0.99 or 1.99 (only 2 choices).. data can be anything from 250bytes all the way upto 1.99megabytes.. and any amount they want in between..

the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.

so even with a 2mb limit your idea works as the miners can then test their limits and increase to add more transactions as they are good and ready


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: MicroGuy on January 25, 2016, 05:50:01 AM
the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.

I wonder what percentage of the community understands this fact? I bet it's a low number. ???

The main issue at the moment (yeah, I watched the 2 hour boring as hell Blockstream video) is that the 2 compromised devs on core have the mother of all conflicts of interest. Keeping the 1MB blocksize is job security. Wake up people!

The Lightening network is non-critical when the main chain can handle entire transactional workload.


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: johnyj on January 25, 2016, 05:55:50 AM
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive

The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical

even with a 2mb limit.. miners dont need to fill that limit..

EG at the moment with 1mb
miners let in 500k-700k of fee paying transactions. and then a handful of free transactions if generous..

some miners (antpool) have been known to prefer to only fill 200k or 700k per block. i really dont see why people still think that 2mb limit means 1.99mb of data for every block in some doomsday scenario..

so, back to the 2mb blocklimit.
miners that want to add more transactions will have 1.005mb of data as their first toe in the water test on processing times.. and when they are comfortable to process transactions without much lag compared to competitors, they will slowly increase adding a few extra transactions to test how fast they can process data.

there is no 0.99 or 1.99 boolean choice.. data can be anything from 250bytes all the way upto 1.99megabytes.. and any amount they want in between..

the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.

so even with a 2mb limit your idea works as the miners can then test their limits and increase to add more transactions as they are good and ready

Again, the cost of digging out gold does not have anything to do with the transaction cost of the gold, when gold is dig, miners will leave, if the fee does not rise enough high

FED just printed several trillions of dollars, it does mean that it costs several trillions to do transactions in USD

Anyway, talk here does not mean anything, you can not generate hash power by talk, those who have invested millions and millions dollar and years and years of work building mining farms now finally can have some advantage in this political game


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2016, 05:59:24 AM
the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.

I wonder what percentage of the community understands this fact? I bet it's a low number. ???

i know.. and sticking to the debate about china.. there reason (supposedly) that 2mb of data is bad, is based on it getting blocked by the great china firewall.. (it wont)
and the laughable part.. segwit pretends to be 1mb.. but the reality of sending full checkable data (txdata+witness(signatures)) is more than 1mb.. because segwit 1mb data drop dream...  is just half a transaction of uncheckable stuff, that miners wont want.. they will want the real full checkable data

which defeats the whole data/firewall opposition.. because the data will still be over 1mb of real data.. whether miners process and check 4001 transactions with a 8000tx buffer (2mb) or if they are processing 4001 segwit transactions WITH witness..


Title: Re: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen,
Post by: johnyj on January 25, 2016, 06:46:50 AM
The latest consensus from chinese mining community is 2MB hard fork at 90% threshold

https://bikeji.com/t/3172