Bitcoin Forum

This is your new Federal Reserve  ;D

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7

 ::)

Welcome centralization,we're expecting this.The comment that caught my attention was right below the article and makes sense."The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.
I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB."
And there's more : https://medium.com/@drwasho/the-pool-administrators-who-have-signed-this-statement-represent-70-of-the-hashing-power-on-the-4fbdca201778#.skcl9nhbf

That guy is trying to spread FUD about Core's intentions. It seems like these kinds of attacks have just begun. If you want to drink the kool-aid and submit to such, go ahead. The miners won't risk reducing the value of their coins.

It seems like you guys are salty.  ;)

Another TBF, let's see how far they go ;)

I doubt at this stage, a hard fork becomes inevitable, you can't walk towards east and west at the same time. Satoshi's 1 million coins will make sure the chain he does not like sink to the bottom of the sea

This can't even be compared to the TBF. Stop your rumbling. It is the end of BU and Classic. I wonder what the next controversial HF will be called, 'Bitcoin Original' maybe?

Nah, it doesn't represent the miners OR the pool operators.
Same pool operators were pro-core after LukeJr. threatened them, then pro-Classic when the threat proved to be trolling, now again pro-Core after having been granted a seat @ Bitcoin Bilderberg Group.
Miners don't hold their coins, they *sell* them to the highest bidder. That bidder is, inevitably, the guy with fiat money, not the guy with BTC. Duh.

https://i.imgur.com/LYzUb7M.jpg

---

---

When you "have the support of the pools", they are important and represent all the miners, but when you don't then they aren't and don't represent anything. You're making it too obvious and easy.  ::)
Classic is DOA.

Only suggesting that the miners (pool operators) will say whatever suits the moment. Real, rational human beings can't possibly bounce from one extreme to the other thrice within a month.
The whole thing is fueled by [petty] backroom dealings & [equally petty] posturing, making it painfully clear how Bitcoin really works; that Bitcoin's consensus mechanism is a muddled junkie's pipe dream. Though, I concede, somewhat funnier & less practical.
http://s28.postimg.org/6kqipuof1/banksyrat.jpg

Really? I see a surge of classic nodes following the announcement, and this time they are switching from existing core nodes, core nodes counts are dropping

Here we go again. When the number of nodes is not in favor of a controversial HF then you guys claim that it does not really matter, but as soon as the numbers start growing then they suddenly do.  ::)
The number of nodes is not a reliable metric.

Jan 29: (http://prntscr.com/a1xxk9)
Classic 0.11.2: 22 Nodes
Core (all versions total): 3796
Other: 1695

Feb 10: (http://prntscr.com/a1xxo4)
Classic 0.11.2: 589
Core (all versions total): 3825
Other: 1395.

---

---

"Switching", "dropping".  ::)

That's quite unreliable as you can't see the exact numbers. All I can clearly see is mostly XT nodes switching to Classic and Core nodes fluctuating as always.

What a shame that Bitcoin users can only vote with their feet. Without users, the whole system will die.

And this is exactly why I'm not so sure about Bitcoins future in general any more... I mean c'mon... really???  There has to be a better/more democratic way to decide these things, and not have the top tier of miners and devs deciding Bitcoins fate from here on out.  What happened to the idea of getting away from centralization and the Fed?  I guess this ideal doesn't really matter to people any more, and people are only buying into Bitcoin for speculation of making a couple extra dollars...

that chart needs changing..

the "core" nodes should be separated out so that the ones running the most recent update are categorised as deciding not to go for 2mb.. and those with older versions of core are categorised as "undecided".

then atleast it would be a fairer view of current situation. because not all people running core right now want to stick to 1mb so shouldnt be shelved into the same category that indicates they want to stick to 1mb.

surprisingly for once Lauda is using stats that is more representable of the network.. where only 0.7% increased in favour of core, but 9.7% decided on classic based on the changes between the 2 dates lauda linked
https://i.imgur.com/v0glpzh.jpg

This is not really centralized and it works. You have two options: 1. Vote with your hashing power; 2. Vote by running nodes. You can't really blame Bitcoin if you lack the capital to compete with others.

Judging from the situation that we're presented with, the majority still supports Core and a lot of the users don't really care (i.e. aren't involved in 'politics').

---

---

Updated post.

“A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people, just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees. [...] Thus the [Bitcoin] dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”

Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed.  To say that the only people who can "vote", in a sense, are the people who have acquired the most capital during these years Bitcoin has been around is seriously fucked up.  Also, miners doesn't really seem to "vote" with their hashing power and distribution of nodes... they "vote" by bitching and complaining and holding threats over the Bitcoin community that they will just shut it all down if they don't get their way or reach a compromise... at least that's what I'm understanding from this whole situation, I could very well be wrong... but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves. 

I'll go ahead and disclose that I have stopped and will never get back into mining because of lack of capital, but I think everyone who is in this Bitcoin "economy" should be able to participate and reach a conclusion just as much as the people with the most "capital".

Big time miners seem to have these solutions that will never "fail", but the reality is is that we all don't know what to do in tackling this... and all of what is being proposed to fix the block size is "theoretical" and "philosophical" in a sense.  People forget that this is still a new project that everyone should be a part of, not a fixed system that should be "governed" by the most powerful people in terms of wealth in BTC. 

It wasn't and the rich people can't really force anything. There is no central authority. I've updated my post.
The industry is trying to work with the developers to find the best solutions. What exactly do you want here? Random aliases on the forums and reddit deciding? They aren't changing any fundamental rules, nor would the users agree on it.

I think this "industry", that I guess has been created, should propose a certain list of electable proposals that people can vote on.  Now, how we would be able to do this is another topic, and could possibly do this by a form election system that uses a sort of "block chain" as well.  This way people can see, verify, and confirm votes that are being submitted.

I feel the best way to do this is to hold an "election" of some sort, and probably would be better to do all of this before the halving begins in the summer.  I just feel that this is the best solution to all of this... Then, whenever bitcoin reaches another problem in the future, devs can then hold another "election", and so on.

People who are on here and pay attention to bitcoin in general aren't stupid... I feel that when deciding between multiple block size proposals, a democratically elected proposal is the best choice.

This proposal, that creates more complexity in the system, needs its own thread though.

That is definitely not the case. It is not that hard to fool people to support something (take Classic for example) that isn't needed/is unsafe/other.

can someone explain to me what is wrong with the classic proposal, i currently run a core node and am thinking of running classic, is it not the case that the 1mb cap is slowing bitcoin down?  how can we move to mass adoption if we dont up scale bitcoin.....?

this make more sense, so it seems that the majority the undecided want to remain with current 1mb limit, if they remain undecided

i means they can not remain undecided forever, there must be a deadline right?

until they update.. we cannot judge what direction they want to go. so assuming they want to stay is unfair.. leaving them in the undecided category is more fair. but when they update then the undecided will make their intentions known.. untill then.. we just dont know so should not assume

I guess it's really an "agree to disagree" type of thing. 

I've seen that scenario being used a lot, and how I see it is that this isn't the case... Certain issues that need to be fixed can be fixed in a number of different ways, and depending on the situation could call for different tactics to solve it.

So if you want someone to represent you in government, would you want a handful of "informed" government officials to make that decision for you?  Of course not.

If you were one of the well informed engineers building that spaceship to the moon and it needed to be done in a certain amount of time; would you like your well "informed" bosses, that knows they can't afford more engineers, to tell you that you should work overtime to build it without pay? Of course not.

To just simply accept something because your "superiors" should know more than you, and hence need to keep your mouth shut is what a dictatorship is...

Fact of the matter is that there are multiple ways to reach a solution for any problem... I just feel that having this "Satoshi round table" isn't the right way to go about things for this specific problem. So again... agree to disagree.

Sorry if it was posted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/458x1w/who_is_who_in_the_signed_fud_letter_pushed_by/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/458x1w/who_is_who_in_the_signed_fud_letter_pushed_by/)

Seems like part of that $50M borgstream funding went straight to bribing idiots and spreading FUD in media.

The main problem is that it's not under  the control of Borgstream. -s

Stop reading /r/btc, thank me later. Apparently everyone that disagrees is a 'nobody' but Gavin, Rizun and Garzik are relevant 'gods'. Enough of the attacks already.
They are "nobodies" according to these ignorant fools. The user who created that post is "blockstreamcoin". I don't need to further comment this.

Another employed account? Interesting.

---

---

1. There is no issue at hand; 2. There is no "fix" from Classic; 3. There is no plan of action from Classic aside from 'copy-paste the works of Core'. What "ways" are you exactly talking about?
The block size debate has been discussed for years. "Satoshi round table" isn't making any decisions, they have just voiced their opinion. What are you talking about?

You keep quoting that...

1. Really? No issue at all to speak of? ; 2. Agree to disagree ; 3.  If you are saying that 1 & 2 are true, then why would there be a need for a "copy-paste" from Core... What exactly are you talking about?  If there is no issue at hand, then there wouldn't be a "debate" at all... ???  There is most certainly a debate.


Look, I know this has been discussed for a while... and from what I'm gathering is that you are in support to allow this "round table" to be the only ones who have their voices heard, and to have this "round table" be the only ones to fix and build "the spaceship going to the moon" that you have quoted before, comparing them to the "well informed engineers" and us to "tax payers".

1. There is no issue right now. Transactions are going through and the network is functioning properly. Is this not the case?
2. Saying "agree to disagree" doesn't invalidate my claim, it just tells me that you have no arguments. A 2 MB block size proposal is not a solution, it is kick of the can down the road.
3. You do realize that the development is not solely focused on the scaleability?  Their announcement states the following:
By "focus development" do they just mean "copy more vigorously"?

I never said that the people who signed that statement were engineers.

transactions are not going through in 10 minutes.. some are waiting an hour
are you that blind


segwit is not a scalability solution. it is just a temporary gimmick.. removing 70bytes of signature one day and later adding more bytes later with the other features.
its like going on a diet for a week and then going to an all-you-can-eat for a month


yep they are more interested in making their premined sidechains be instantly worth the same price as bitcoin (greedy BStards). their aim is a firesale, bait and switching people over to their premines.

they dont care about bitcoin scaleability.. they want their billion dollar premine profits, by making bitcoin unscalable and costly to use to switch people over

lauda is still on the mindset that its a core vs classic.. he needs to learn that CORE can, should and eventually need to move to 2mb.. even if its a 2mb+segwit. that the only real debate is WHEN..

All I'm trying to say is that no one will be able to know what the full effect will be down the road.  It's still all very experimental, and to say that Classic is the only proposal that will ever be needed from here on out is not very smart.  I know that the 2 MB proposal is a "kick the can down the road" approach, nor am I saying that I support that... I just know that as more blocks continue to max out, and confirmation times continually slow down as more people are using bitcoins; the worse it is for bitcoin.

I really wasn't trying to argue necessarily about the block size debate itself... I was just trying to get my point across that governance of Bitcoin is progressively getting more sketchy to me and seems to become more centralized.  I know that word pisses off a lot of people and I'm not necessarily saying that it is full out centralized just yet... but you can't doubt that it has slowly but surely gotten to be that way.

I just don't necessarily like when people say that "X" is the only way to go and there is no other alternative because that is just the way it is.  Even though this problem doesn't seem like much right now, the more people start using bitcoin, the bigger this problem becomes... so it's better to fix it now... am I not right?

Okay "X is better than Y", where X represents Segwit and Y represents Classic/2MB blocks. That's the right way to see it then I guess. You're right, it will become a bigger problem. However, scaling via the block size will never be able to solve this problem because it is very inefficient. Here are some quick calculations that I did a while back:
350x365 = 127 750 GB per year (i.e. 127 TB). This can be avoided with the second layer.

pulling random numbers out of your ass,,(700mill users, 1 tx a day) where did you even get these numbers from

your putting a utopian dream of 20+ years time, to try defending blockstreams greed of 2016 decisions.. really!
your numbers have nothing to do with any possible reality of 2016-2018, get a grip

the debate for the next 2 years is basically 2mb+segwit (approx 4mb capacity emulation)

currently 1mb allows 2000 tx(average) a block. 144 blocks a day.

thats basically acting as if 288,000 transactions a day.. you can interpret it as only 288,000 doing 1 transaction a day or 2million people making a transaction every 7 days.

with 2mb. thats upto 576,000 tx a day potential.

with 2mb segwit. its initially 1million tx a day, and then downplayed to 500,000 once things like payment codes and other added variables/constants added to the tx.

with 1mb segwit its initially 500,000 tx a day and then downplayed to 250,000 once  things like payment codes and other added variables/constants added to the tx.

The BlockstreamCore apologists should open their eyes.

Bitcoin needs a fork or its network effect will disappear.

No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!

What if I told you that keeping bitcoin crippled will assure the centralization (and later failure) of bitcoin as it doesn't allow more participants to hit the network?

Consider that currently about 1-2M people own BTC. There are about !!3300M!! internet connected users currently.

The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.

Blockstream is incentivized to keep the protocol crippled and under their control, so sidestepping them is highly important.
If it won't happen bitcoin will remain centralized.

Also, please consider that centralization/decentralization is not an exact property, but a spectrum.

It can't. Stop spreading false information.

I don't see how this is "centralization"? Do you know what that means?

Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.

I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.

You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.

---

---

Off topic: What degree do you have? Are you another economist, art teacher, or something else irrelevant trying to spread your "wisdom" on technology?

^^How's about yourself? What degrees do *you* have?

This post says that if Bitcoin were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second the blockchain would grow by 1 GB per hour. Most "unlimited bandwidth" broadband providers actually limit your bandwidth at peak traffic times. You only find out when you try using massive bandwidth for extended periods and get a warning from them.

You're not a fan of reading comprehension, are you?

Why are most Blockstream sockpuppets retards?

lauda fails to show statistics that show that the internet is still at dialup speeds. or home computers are not powerful enough.. and instead resorts to character assassination.
so here are some details

its 2016 not 2001.. people can play online games in HD(upload data for character movements, directions of fire and bullet tragectory on a constant bases (not a 1scond webpage analogy that gavin stupidly made)), while on teamspeak(voice upload), while also streaming it to twitch in HD (large upload).. simultaneously..
so that debunks bandwith..

also bitcoin runs on a raspberry pi right now. so a intel celeron laptop is twice as powerful. and a intel i7 standard desktop is twice the power again.. so that means standard desktops are atleast 4x more powerful and able to handle bitcoin at 4x the scale.. so 2x the scale is no issues

i believe that all the concerns against the limit increase are a bit fud

look at this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

only maybe the "centralization point" have something right to say

centralization is one central point.. bitcoin will be decentralized by its very definition. but its DISTRIBUTION of that decentralization can be reduced

even segwit can cause a reduction in distribution of fullnodes. by allowing the 5000 nodes to think its ok to not be fullnodes(archival mode) and instead be just compatible (no witness mode).

1=centralize
2(unrelated not coluding)= limited distribution decentralized
10,000= wide distribution decentralized

decentralization is not a true or false question.
https://i.imgur.com/9wS2kVM.jpg

its a sliding scale
https://i.imgur.com/TM0hMsO.jpg

http://photo.mystisland.org/2016/versions.png

Let's look at this list closely


Satoshi 0.11.2 is the latest version released on November 13, that's long before the hongkong conference and Classic announcement, so that's almost all of the actively upgraded nodes, 41.73% of all nodes

Satoshi 0.11.0, 0.11.1 and 0.10.2 are slower upgraded nodes, users do not actively update, most possibly unattended mining nodes

Satoshi 0.12 should be luke_jr fan's version because of RBF, but it is only 2.75% of total nodes, so it is possible that even blockstream fans are not there yet, otherwise it is not looking so bright for blockstream

Classic 0.11.2 just published a few days and now it is 13.96%, 5 times more than satoshi 0.12, and is already 1/3 of all actively updated nodes

Say, why is the title "Satoshi round table"?

AFAIK, Satoshi Roundtable 1 was held on Feb last year (http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-elite-meet-secret-island-bilderberg-style-retreat/), and Satoshi Roundtable 2 (http://satoshiroundtable.org) will be held at the end of this month.

The letter posted on Medium seems to be associated with Bitfury's Consensus Roundtable, which is a different beast altogether.

Thanks for pointing out the error, I just corrected it, but I can not change the replies

Suppose that everything here is true, let's see how today's technology are capable of

In 1996, the optical fiber achieved 1Tbps in labs, and average home have 28Kbps modem. That's about 35 million:1. 20 years later, optical fiber achieved 255TB in labs
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber)
And average home have 10Mbps, that's 25 million:1. So it scales roughly at the same speed (because the backbone need to handle millions of users), grows at 30% per year

So if the bandwidth requirement grows at 30% per year then the technology will always be able to handle it along the way. Currently we are at almost 100% per year increase of transaction volume, so in 7 years you would need 1Gbps to handle, but that is already available in some area today, so at least in a decade there will not be a problem

And there is a point people usually forget: We are already at 1million + users today, if the amount of users doubles each year, then in 10 years you will have 1 billion people in the world using bitcoin, which is highly unlikely. So it seems that if we don't have a bottleneck in the next 5 years, we will never have it

Storage and CPU/memory are much less a concern since you can just add more of it without permission

that's ridiculous. you're basing this on the best possible scenario, and suggesting that the entire network should be running nodes on the best connections in the world. you can't begin to prove that technological improvements and internet infrastructure will keep pace. bitcoin, like any other engineering project and large scale system, should be planned with the worst case scenarios in mind. not the best case scenarios.

i'm smelling some allusion to moore's law, so i'll just leave this here:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/

it's funny, i remember bitcoin being sold as a "solution for the unbanked." never mind that the unbanked are largely limited to 3G/4G connections which are unable to run a node to validate their own transactions. so much for "being your own bank" eh?


i'm having a tough time understanding the point youre making here.

and what would you call them if they backed Classic?

Keep drinking the kool-aid and trying to manipulate the people into a controversial HF. It won't work while a few of us are around.

Something in the lines of the 'Messiah'. Because as long as they back Core, they are evil according to their foolish propaganda.

Yeah, that "solution for the unbanked" was just a sales pitch, didn't think anyone took that seriously. But fine, if you need things spelled out: We lied, now what?

To be fair tho, the great unwashed don't need to run a node: a web wallet (for the well-to-do hoi polloi in possession of a smart phone/3G/4G interweb) would be an upgrade to the tin beggar's cup their substantial life savings are otherwise secured in.

In worst case scenario you still have some people running dial-up network and GSM phone (in fact a lot of people), so the bitcoin data traffic should be reduced by 100 times following your logic

If you prefer settlement system, then I'm thinking about a settlement layer for networks. You do the data settlement on backbone internet between thousands of full nodes with 1GB bandwidth, while the rest of the nodes are running SPV nodes and require much less bandwidth. This model is much simpler to handle than a financial settlement system


Semiconductor technology has almost reached its physical limitation, so the current trend is just adding more chips, like you did in GPU mining instead of CPU mining

However the theoretical limit of Optical Fiber has not been reached yet, and average home are not using Fiber yet (Some part of the world is deploying fiber to home) a fiber in theory can at least handle TB level data. And today's commercial solutions already can provide 100GB bandwidth. If you have 5000 private companies running nodes on 10GB network, we already can handle the traffic for the next 10 years


It is obvious that Moore's law does not apply with user growth either, so you won't have exponential traffic volume growth. In fact I think in one decade there will be maximum 10 million users, which you already can handle with today's infrastructure

People's choice  ;D

It's simple, if it is a complex and no-one-can-understand scheme supported by a large group of decision makers, then it is definitely centralized decision making. But if it is a 1+1=2 like simple and easy-to-reach-consensus scheme supported by a large group of decision makers, then it is just they align with major consensus

If you start to use QE/FRB like terms like SW, LN, SC, then you are getting more and more close to Federal Reserve way of working, trying to confuse people with strange terms so that they don't understand what is going on

A fine case of personal incredulity. Just because you are cognitively limited and can't understand those concept that does not mean that they are confusing/bad/similar to FED or whatever nonsense you're going to spit up next. People with relevant degrees (yours is not) understand the underlying infrastructure and code. Various experts have and will review these technologies. Lightning Network and Sidechains are the way to scale Bitcoin unless someone comes up with something better. Scaling via the block size is inferior.

---

---

I do wonder when your contract ends.

I used to manage thousands of these so called experts, they just can master computer language like 000101010100000101111, but it doesn't mean they can think better than others. Just like you don't understand chinese/japanese does not make you less intelligent than chinese/japanese people

“今者臣来，见人于大行，方北面而持其驾，告臣曰：’吾欲之楚。’臣曰：‘君之楚，将奚为北面？’曰：‘吾马良。’臣曰：‘马虽良，此非楚之路也。’曰：‘吾用多。’臣曰：‘用虽多，此非楚之路也。’曰：‘吾御者善。’此数者愈善，而离楚愈远耳。

Very bad analogy. You're comparing a computer language to a human language. Learning another language is pretty much useless (aside from being able to communicate with more people). With computer languages the possibilities are 'infinite' (limited by imagination, skill and the technology though). Apparently you think that CS majors are only about computer languages, which is very wrong.

Great to know. I used to run Google in my free time.

---

---

As always: personal incredulity.

People usually worship something they don't understand. I recommend you read some fundamental computer knowledge, that battery, wire and bubble experiment is a good start, then followed by "from nand to tetris". Even a teenager can build a computer using 3000 components, it is not rocket science, far from it, just layers and layers of translation

The average joe that acts irrationally? I guess that might be true.

I don't need to. There are better ways to learn boolean algebra than "from nand to tetris". I've yet to see how this is related to the OP.

http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Facepalm-Meme-Gif-08.jpg

If the block size debate had to be solved in ~3 days how would we get it done starting right now?

Even if we had very good solutions to deploy right now, there is no way to implement those upgrades within 3 days via soft/hard fork without causing losses. Albeit one could argue that if the miners really wanted it you could push a soft fork really quickly (so far, it took weeks to activate one), but this is not the case with a hard fork (as everyone matters). There is no way of solving it in such a small amount of time without causing significant loses/confusion/chaos.

http://www.threadabort.com/?p=9

So 1 wire = 1 component, good to know. ::) Stop with the nonsense. It's quite easy to spot the people who won't admit that they're wrong. You're not even trying hard enough.
Again, how is this relevant to OP? Because it isn't.

like you're always right? right? i think you need to stop being so cocky, really....

i dunno anymore who is worse, those that ignore the other while they think they are always right and actually post no-sense, or sig spammer

This is always a valid concern since banks can always print billions of dollars and build thousands of farms and take over 90% of hash power. But I think in the end, people have a choice in selecting which version of software they run, bank can not force bitcoin on you like they did with fiat money. So it is ultimately decided by the people's awareness of the code that they run

In another word, if you understand the candidate you can make better decision, obviously that is not even possible for presidential election  ;D

>newfangled breadboard
>not manstyle wire wrap (https://bitcointalk.org/wiki/Wire_wrap)
Peasant.

...there is no way to implement those upgrades within 3 days
Sorry that wasn't clear:
What if the block size debate had to be solved in ~3 days or less?    ...implementation is ASAP.

You're asking a very tough question. Nobody in this world can tell you the right solution nor is there a perfect solution. I'd say the only thing that we could decide to do within 3 days (16/02/2016) is a HF to raise the block size. However, I'd say a 1.5MB block size limit with the 'workaround' that Gavin used in order to prevent blocks that take too long to validate. Albeit, this is where thingss becomes tricky. You can't rush a HF and choosing a grace period that is too short could cause a negative effect. Even Garzik said that the minimum grace period should be 3 to 6 months. By this time Segwit would be ready for deployment. One could add a HF as a backup plan if Segwit fails to deliver on time, however the developers are certain that everything will be properly coded and tested in time.

---

---

Tl;dr: I'd say that you just can't solve it in '3 days' and especially not right now. If you had asked me this 1 year earlier, then raising the block size limit would be my final answer (most likely).

A wise man accepts he doesn't know everything.
A fool believes he knows everything.

If only someone warned us about this blocksize thingy 1 year ago & maybe proposed "raising the block size limit"...

maybe Bit_happy should have said 7 days..  because i dont think Lauda realises that 1000 blocks is just 7 days..

i said it ages ago 10,000 block trigger(70 days) PLUS X months grace period for the remaining 25% laggers to finally move over seems better than 7days+28