Bitcoin Forum

https://medium.com/@barmstrong/the-bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-proposal-too-little-too-late-e694f13f40b#.ys0fqjis1

What do you think guys ? I personally agree with him about the second point "2. July 2017 is too far away to raise the block size"

i don't, why suddenly there should be a need for 2mb when we were remained for so long without it, july is still too close for all the blocks to be saturated

it seems a fair target around the halving, so many will notice more the need to hard fork, and you don't get that some will forget to upgrade...

This is like a kid that get told by his parents that something cannot be done but he wouldn't accept it and starts getting annoying. No matter what happens there will always be people pushing their agendas even tho consensus is meet.

Increasing the blocksize seems to be an unsophisticated solution that will have a limited effect. I believe it will lead to an increase in centralisation as block finding rewards decrease. SegWit ands side chains should provide a short term solution, and provide a basis for future growth. This gives a breathing space whilst a solution to the current delays caused by the 10 minute block interval can be debated.

Why are you even reading his nonsense? He will get to you. He's just mad that he can't push his own agenda (e.g. more control/oversight of the development). Keep in mind that his very own CTO signed the Core roadmap, yet Brian insists on controversial HF's.

That won't be changed. This is also not the cause of any problems actually.

r/btc is going up in flames right now, everyone is being attacked. ::)

If I were him I'd be trying to be more constructive and collaborative. I do think nearly a year and a half away is too long for more capacity.

You should see capacity increases as soon as Segwit is deployed. Deployment depends on the miners and should happen anytime after April. I have no idea why you would think that there is going to be no increase for a year and a half.

lol capacity increases as soon as segwit is deployed.. and then a couple months later reduced as new features get added to the mix to add more data back into it.

lauda.. try reading some code and understanding it better.. maybe reading a C++ book will help you get started. and no dont go for a java book or you will just be wasting your time. (http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453062298.0)

the whole 2mb block size debate has been going on from summer 2015 and core want to make people wait until summer 2017..

thats like having a 65yearold(bitcoin 6.5 years old summer 2015) man ask for viagra, dr's argue with him about possible health implications and only giving in and handing him a prescription when he is 85(bitcoin 8.5 years old summer 2017) because they finally realise that its a health benefit and the risks are negligable

how about put the code in the april release with the consensus rules. that way those upgrading in april dont need to upgrade again in july 2016 and then dont need to upgrade again the year after.. then everyone after april can be happy that the april release has the settings ready. avoiding constant upgrades

if the argument is about the time it takes to get everyone to upgrade. then get the code in sooner so people dont need to constantly upgrade which in itself is adding to the delay.

why oh why does the code need to be added in july 2016 and not april?

Actually December 2015.

Coinbase CEO is a mental midget

I thought block increase was summer 2016...

We are fucked!

No major adoption for another 1.5 years, that's like an eternity in Internet time!

Segwit gives you almost the same amount of increase in transaction capacity as a 2 MB block size limit. What are you complaining about?

When it comes down to it does anybody really give a shit what he thinks?

Well, he is the CEO of the most valuable bitcoin company, with more than 2 million users, if someone knows what bitcoin companies need to grow it's him, so I guess his opinion should be taken into consideration.

actually before that. but it was only in december that it got turned and twisted into a core vs competitor political debate.
(hint: google has the answer, "2mb bitcointalk" search february 2015 -september 2015 and below is just some examples)

bip, 23rd june 2015 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0102.mediawiki

random chatter july 2015: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129477.0
random chatter August 2015: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161263.0

For people who think summer 2017 is unreasonable: what exactly do you think is going to happen if we don't get an increase sooner, and what proof do you have?

i heard a giant asteroid called mainstream adoption will hit planet bitcoin and if we don't raise the block size limit soon it will destroy us all.

see: mike hearn's blog

more bottlenecking, higher fee's. lots more complaints of people waiting upto an hour. word of mouth gets out that bitcoin is losing all of the aspects that made it special. (virtually free transactions, no corporate control, fast transactions)

with the FIAT economy pushing forward with faster payment methods and allowing virtually free transfers between parties.. bitcoin is losing its utility.
the real funny thing is that 2mb could have even as far back as last year been implemented into any persons client.. but core lovers argued that 2mb was bad and would kill bitcoin. lots of doomsday scenarios and propoganda.. but as soon as core said they would do it.. suddenly no doomsday scenario..

but core is delaying it still. and that makes the so called decentralized community appear to be fully reliant on blockstream.. much like most fiat users are reliant on Visa

Higher fees = how much? Prohibitively high? If so, how do you know?

Since when were bitcoin transactions supposed to be free? It may have been so when no one was using it, but could you point me to where Satoshi said in the whitepaper anything about transactions being free or "virtually free?"

Transactions are still instant. They will still be instant. How quickly you want it to confirm is up to the sender and the market. Which leads me back to my first question: will fees be prohibitively high? How do you know? How do you know that people won't batch micropayments, send less transactions that inefficiently use block space? In the future, of course, there will be LN for such things.

i don't think this is a valid objection,

segwit will effectively double block size ( or 1.5X ? wtv,  huge increase none the less )  and this should give much breathing room until July 2017. Do they expect TX volume to go up overnight? I expect it'll take ~a year to start filling these new blocks to the max again at which point the HF increase will be rolled out.

a year goes by fast...

He can't be trusted. Coinbase is everything bitcoin wasn't intended to be. See these quotes -

Is he still pushing for the blacklisting of IP addresses? If so, then forget it.

Also, I don't like how they block/reject some Bitcoins based upon how the Bitcoins have been used. This destroys the fungibility property of Bitcoin (some Bitcoins are worth less than other Bitcoins). I like a lot of what Coinbase does but these two issues are a big problem for me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=747596.0

everyone that disagrees with coinbase wanting to back peddle and continue the blocksizebitchfest while bitcoin bleeds out, needs to withdraw there bitcoins from coinbase to cold storage.

People have been discussing and debating increasing the block size ever since the 1 MB limit was first put into place.  This is a discussion that has been going on since October 2010.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347

Everyone seems to think that the discussion started when they first heard about it. Nobody ever seems to think the discussion might have started before that.

It's the same thing as banks freezing/closing your account due to suspicious activity. If you want to trade on regulated exchange, that's the kind of shit you'll be getting. If it was up to them, they'll likely accept every coin and every customer, as it directly converts to more profit. But they do need to comply with law.

2 mil users? are you joking? all the BTC users are around of 2 millions   ;D

forget about HF already. give up. wont happen.

This figure gets thrown around alot. I think it's Coinbase wallets. I doubt that means verified individuals. They could supply that figure if they wanted to. I guess it's gonna blow their cool if they do.

SegWit needs to be adopted by the userbase in order for the transaction capacity to actually increase. Also, if an attacker (similar to the one from last summer) wanted to fill the blockchain with spam transactions then they could make a lot of non-SegWit transactions that fill blocks up with transactions whose signatures are counted towards the 1 MB limit.

Transactions are not instant, if your transaction is to get confirmed in the next block then you must wait on average 5 minutes for a transaction to be (mostly) irreversible (no it is not 10 minutes because if blocks are found on average every 10 minutes, and you send your transaction at a random time, then on average you will send a transaction 5 minutes after a block was last found). If however there are more transactions then there is capacity for transactions (eg every 10 minutes there are 1.001 MB worth of transactions sent) then the backlog of transactions to get confirmed will grow infinitely, as will the fee required to get a transaction to ever confirm (not just quickly).

One reason why, for the most part it is somewhat safe to accept 0/unconfirmed transactions is that transaction volume is low enough so that transactions will eventually get confirmed, provided a sufficient fee is included, so as long as a sufficient fee is attached to a transaction then the receiver can be confident that the transaction will get confirmed, as well as the fact that nodes will reject and not relay any transaction that conflicts with a transaction already stored in it's mempool making it difficult for most people to double spend a transaction even when it is 0/unconfirmed. However RBF will change that once 0.12 is released.

---

RE: the topic -- I think that Brian has a lot of good points (I would say that I agree with him on all of his points). Like him, I would question the timeline of the HF and would question why we would simply not use the code that is already available in Classic.

Coinbase would have the effective ability to veto any HF proposal as it is a significant enough of an economic player in Bitcoin to have this "veto card". I don't think they would veto a HF that increases the max block size to 2 MB next year, I believe that he is looking for a quicker timeline.

Too far & possibly even a LIE!

This CEO wants to throw his weight around, because USA users have to use his service to buy and sell Bitcoin legally. He also wants to fully regulate Bitcoin and strip it from all pseudo anonymity with all the KYC and AML bullshit. He follows the same goals as Mike Hearn and Gavin to strip people from their financial privacy. < Supporting XT and Classic >

Coinbase in my opinion, is just another Microsoft that collects information from it's user and regulate how and when they can use it. < Account banning, when they use the service for things they do not like, eg Gambling >   

Well gambling in the US is not generally legal, so if they want to keep their FinCEN status etc. they kind of have to do that.

If you want to do things that the government may not see as legal, run a wallet on your local computer and send bitcoins bought from coinbase to your local software wallet.

Then use that to make your transactions.

I thought that would be common sense.

1Mb or 2Mb - there isn't really much difference in computing terms. My view is that more 1Mb blocks is a far better solution than just taking the simplistic approach of increasing blocksize. What has come out of this whole debate in my oppinion, is the attempt by a few people to try to control Bitcoins growth and direction. For this reason alone we should resist the 2Mb immediate change. Also, as somebody has pointed out, we should switch away from large malignant companies who are trying to force changes on the philosophy of Bitcoin.

It seems to me that there are considerable long term benefits in supporting core. 2Mb blocks are a temporary attempt to solve an anticipated problem, and there would appear to be no long term benefits from its immediate implementation.

why? they are doing it with core directly now, plus segwit added on top of that

first of all the ramifications of trying to make a block average at every 2 minutes or 5 minutes will affect so much more things.. so lets not mess with that.
lets concentrate on allowing more transactions to be let in during the 10 minute period rather than messing with the scarcity rules and difficulty rules.

secondly its not a fight over who has control. because ultimately NO ONE should have control. everyone should be able to builld in bitcoin and expand it if the community think its a great idea..

but for you to want blockstream to dominate and control bitcoin.. then you my friend have swalled the wrong pill and gone down the wrong hole.

blockstream in summer of 2015 when the debate reescalated could have put in the couple lines of code and have a 1 year grace period meaning that we would be about to get the 2mb buffer activated.. but no, they wanted the hardfork in 2017 all along. and they instigated the year long debate to delay any action. even now they are trying to not add the code in their next release (april) and try to keep debate going until july. just so that the hard fork happens in their planned agenda.

again bitcoin should have no controller. bitcoin should work without having to trust anyone. so dont join the core fanclub because then your missing out on what bitcoin truly is.

i agree they do have some talented programmers. but that alone should not be a reason to denounce any idea's of expansion that are not core inspired.

dont think of it as a gavin vs blockstream or hearn vs blockstream..

think of it as community 2mb vs blockstream delays and planned agenda.

no one ever said that 2mb+segwit was bad. but many many people said blockstream having overall veto power on what can be implemented or not and when it can be implemented is a bad thing.

the most funny part of blockstreams agenda. is when talking about any code that is not their own intellectual property, they try to call it magic fairy dust that doesnt work because there is no problem, or would caause a nuclear disaster thats not needed... but when they talk about segwit, they are happy to admit there is a problem.. and when they talk about LN they again are happy to admit there is a problem. and when they talk about sidechains they are happy to admit there is a problem.. but not if any of the millions of bitcoin users came up with the idea first. and thats what makes it so hilarious and hypocritical of blockstream fanboys, that they make it so obvious and think that people cant see it

Yes there is. The validation time is quadratic, meaning that a transaction could be constructed that would take over 10 minutes to validate. Gavin proposed a workaround for this (limitation) and Segwit has a solution that makes the validation time scale down (to linear IIRC).

You don't need no solution right now. We are going to have Segwit released in April. This will give the needed capacity boost among other things. The HF should be deployed (hopefully) in 2017.

It is not too far && they lose credibility if they don't deliver, ergo such assumptions are foolish.

does the "consensus" solution hurt the Coinbase business model and road map?

i'm trying to get inside Brian's head to understand his behavior.

I'm sure it's not verified individuals.

It's already hard to believe it's 2 millions wallets so 2 millions people? That's more the number of bitcoiners worldwide...

Apologies, I was too general in making that statement. I was referring more to the physical computing aspects, rather than the impact in the Bitcoin environment. I did read about the possibility of creating spam text to clog the validation process, and there is also the probability of miners submitting empty blocks, which does nothing to help speed up confirmations. I assume there is also the possibility of some miners including dodgy transactions to reduce their computing requirements, and the detection of these will clog up processes.

Just out of interest, why isn't BIP6 being used to determine the desirability of a 2Mb block?

STATS

3,300,000
USERS

5,000,000
WALLETS

42,000
MERCHANTS

8,000
DEVELOPER APPS

https://www.coinbase.com/about

no because the consensus solution is basically any available solution plus something as a bonus, since they are not going to do seg wit only but adding 2mb also

so i'm not sure what he is moaning about, maybe he is a mike hearn friend and like to complaing because xt was doa

Well establishment has been pouring money to Bitcoin startups, thinking it's paypal 2.0. The goal has been to control it and push their agenda onto Bitcoin, and of course be in position of force to shut "Bitcoin" down if it gets out of control.

Now there are establishment shills are waking up to the cold reality of the Bitcoin network not adapting to their whims, so they're now trying to exert their
wishes unto Bitcoin startup ceo's , realizing they can't control shit.

An epic shill - community debate ensues, with an endless stream of fearmongering posts and "Bitcoin is Dead" media headlines.

What will the next steps be, that is the question. Cutting off the heads of the medusa (shut down startups and arrest everybody) is highly unlikely, since everyone in the Bitcoin community realizes who is actually behind it and shutting of exchanges would cause users funds loss and Bitcoin price to the moon.

I wonder what happens next.

just a tip, dont try getting advice from lauda, he doesnt know the code and is endlessly grabbing scraps of mis information from others and using the fanboy club to back him up.. its like a circle jerk of chinese whispers.

you are better off going to irc: #bitcoin-dev  and asking those involved directly.. as lauda has been corrected many times and been proven wrong alot.
try not to swallow lauda blockstream pill and try to keep an open mind to the whole community not just blockstream.. bitcoin should never rely on just blockstream to control bitcoins future. so try to keep an open mind and dont go blindly down that dark path of blockstream dominance.

I love coinbase because it is the only easy way I know of to turn my fiat cash into bitcoin and reverse.

However it is no Paypal 2.0 and I don't see it as that.

I see it as a place where I buy and then transfer to my wallet.

And transfer from my wallet and then sell.

Usually I keep a small amount there, about 1 BTC, so I can use it when I am not at home as I don't trust the Android client and don't run a wallet on my laptop.

Right now my account is empty in response to the CEO saying they had switched to Classic, I wanted to clear out any funds I had there in case a hard fork happened - I didn't want any chance of my bitcoins being tied to transactions that were only valid on that fork.

Looks like with the consensus that fear is over, there won't be a fork until Core is ready for it.

So perhaps the CEO should be happy the consensus took place - because the consensus is the only thing that will keep me buying and selling on his platform.

Well that does make sense. In general computing the difference is usually negligible as we're dealing with small amounts of data.

'BIP6'? I don't see it in the list of BIPs.

Anyone can make such bold claims on their website. I'm going to assume that this is the total number of users that have ever used Coinbase (not currently using).

Why the urge to increase the blocksize?
I know that we need it, but we don't need it NOW, most block aren't 100%(or close to that) "filled".

I feel ashamed of Bitcoin looking how a great idea has become a stupid war just because no one agrees with others.

Satoshi did well abandoning his project: now he doesn't have to lead with retards and can say "don't blame me, I started it, but those guys that screwed up".

1. thank you for admitting you dont run a full node
2. you do realise if a fork happened it would be by majority and so coinbase would be part of the majority and so coinbase would be on the safer fork, rather than the laggers not upgrading being left behind.

3. the contention is only caused by people refusing to upgrade. so i agree by core saying they will upgrade there wont be contention.. the problem is that if the rest of the community add a few lines of code before core wants.. then core are not protecting their fanboys by avoiding adding the same code themselves. by core delaying and avoiding adding the buffer. they are the cause of their own contention and ultimately the cause of themselves being left behind if majority moves forward without core.. its a self fulfilling prophecy..

yes they are, 90% of blocks are over 900k of data.. the 2mb rule is not something that forces miners to make blocks over 1mb.. its to a a safety buffer to allow blocks room to grow, even if it takes months or years. having a buffer is about allowing growth naturally and at their own pace, not forcing growth.

there is no single bit of code that pushes miners to make 1.999mb so by pretending that bitcoin doesnt need 2mb buffer because there is no need for every block to be 1.999mb is because bitcoin doesnt need to make 1.99mb right now.. it just needs the buffer space to naturally grow without hindrance.

in short the community can now have 2mb rule in place and miners can still make <1mb blocks and nothing will change. the buffer itself is not an issue. just like 1mb buffer was not an issue when miners were making blocks 0.000250mb-0.5mb from 2009-2013

that 1mb buffer allowed natural growth over years without argument or debate.
if you think that block limit buffer should only be expanded to 1.1mb to allow a 10% buffer is just going to cause endless debates and chasing our own tail always trying to get the developers to keep adding more and getting the community to upgrade. which is a headach every couple of months

a 2mb allows 100% extra buffer for growth that atleast gives a few years unhindered growth before the debate has to raise its head again

I do run a full node. I run bitcoin-core and that's where most of my coins are. Well most of my coins not in a cold address I always use coinbase.
It is clear to me you have reading comprehension problems. I'm sorry for that.

Most of the time I use a desktop, and that's where I run core. The laptops I have - one is windows 7, too insecure for money. The other is an older Thinkpad running CentOS 7 with only 4 GB of memory, don't want to run a node on it.

I use coinbase primarily to buy and sell.

-=-

If a hard fork happened it needs to be a 95% majority to be safe. 75% like classic wanted is dangerous because blocks would continue to be mined on both forks resulting in coins that are only valid on the particular chain possibly entering circulation.

As has been explained several times, a hard fork is not needed now - the blocks as they are right now often have space left in them. The current delays are not caused by lack of block space.

Waiting with the hard fork is wise as has been pointed out in this thread because it potentially allows other issues to be part of it.

Hard forks should be rare, and really only done when the risk of not doing the hard fork is more dangerous than doing it. That wasn't the case with classic.

the 2mb rule is not a rule to force miners to make bigger blocks.. its to add buffer space to allow natural growth as and when miners choose to grow,

at 75% it a trigger to say to the world "wake up people, miners want to grow". then that atleast should persuade people to upgrade to protect themselves.. and im pretty sure even with the buffer set miners wont risk making actual larger blocks until an even higher majority as we both agree that its not safe for miners to make bigger blocks at 75% as there is a 25% chance their blocks will get orphaned.

and by you talking about classic. it not thinking about a 2mb rule that ANYONE can implement. and trying to sway the argument into the political game.

so try to have a coffee, wipe your mind of XT/Classic/BU and reset your mindset into an open community proposal that ANY client can implement the 2mb rule. then put that into some of your scenarios

My bad - I've been drinking coffee since 5am today. I guess it's affecting me. :) I meant BIP0009

This document specifies a proposed change to the semantics of the 'version' field in Bitcoin blocks, allowing multiple backward-compatible changes (further called "soft forks") to be deployed in parallel. It relies on interpreting the version field as a bit vector, where each bit can be used to track an independent change. These are tallied each retarget period. Once the consensus change succeeds or times out, there is a "fallow" pause after which the bit can be reused for later changes.

Would you agree that if we are going to do a hard fork, it is prudent to look for other issues that may need a hard fork to address at the same time? Classic didn't do that.

seriously.

your still on the mindset of a doomsday scenario of every block being 1.999mb full as of march 2016 if classic got their way..

what i would like to see is Aprils release of core to have the consensus trigger ode to allow a 2mb buffer. not based on 7 days of data(1000 blocks). as that can be sybil attacked. but 70 days of data, that way its not going to be a big shock of 1 week no consensus then 7 days later mass panic.

over 70 days(10,000blocks) people can estimate that if more than 108 blocks a day(75%) have the indicator. then they need to start thinking about upgrading the code to protect themselves.. if 108blocks a day happen on more then a few days then its time to get their act together.. if 3750 blocks of 5000 (over a month) show a consensus pattern then people really need to stop ignoring it and get their ass together if they have not already. and then if after 70 days and 7500 of 10,000 blocks people have still not moved their asses to protect themselves. then there would also be a grace period. to basically say.. 'look people get ur asses into gear or be left holding clams'..

core delayed adding a buffer for a year. now they dont want to add any code for atleast 6 months and ontop of that delay any potential growth for a further year.. the funny part is that core say there is no need for more capacity buffer. yet they are pushing real hard for segwit, sidechains and offchains for..... the very same reason they pretend does not exist

i personally have not favored classic, xt or bu. i just want more capacity buffer without any corporate ownership.. so try to drop the classic mantra and think of scenarios about the code.

that all said.. addressing your question.. i think the april client upgrade is a great time to have the 2mb code consensus stuff inplace that way its a one time upgrade. rather than trying to endlessly get people to upgrade every couple months.

so yes if there is going to be a hard fork. then yes make all the changes needed that can only be done at the time of a hard fork so that people dont need to upgrade every couple months

I wouldn't call that 90%
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

This week most blocks are over 900K, OK, but it will probably come a bit down at any moment. It just keeps going up and down.
Ofc it needs to be increased sometime soon, but it's totally dumb to be "OMG INCREASE IT NOW. ARE U NOT GOING TO INCREASE IT? SCREW YOU, I'M GOING TO MAKE MY OWN FORK OF BTC, GET REKT".

lol ok here is some maths.. you can even use a calculator
9 blocks of 900,000 bytes and just 1 block of 250 bytes WONT show as an average of 900k.. but an average of 810k
900000
900000
900000
900000
900000
900000
900000
900000
900000
250
810025

so even with 90% of blocks being 900k or more.. the average shows as only being 800k.. actual data vs averages dont show the same result

secondly try to rewind your mind back to 2013. where many blocks were only 450k ... now imagine if the block limit was only 500k.. and core wanted to wait 2 years to upgrade it upto 1mb... for the very same reason you are debating..
now imagine what would have happened to bitcoin if the block limit was only 500k right up until 2015..(last year)
then use that scenario to open your mind to the current situation

No one is screwing it up, the discussions must happen and sooner or later blocksize limit has to increase. It's better to discuss it before it is needed so there is enough time for the the community to reach a viable consensus that fits most part of the shareholders.

you sure it is not 1 BILLION users and merchants? ::)

are those genuine data, many user can fake their account easily, maybe with stolen id too, so no have one id request is not a guarantee that those user are genuine at 100%

same for the wallets and the other numbers

and many company fake their data as well..

gotta cope with teh investors delusions y know..


but we know they are having cash burning issues.. or is it bitpay? ::)

http://qntra.net/2015/03/coinbase-compliance-chief-resigns/
http://qntra.net/2015/02/coinbase-to-shut-down-tipping-button/
http://qntra.net/2015/09/eyewitness-people-walking-out-of-bitpay-office-in-tears/
http://qntra.net/2015/06/bitpay-continues-to-falter/
http://qntra.net/2015/01/bitpay-lays-off-9-employees-today/
http://qntra.net/2015/03/bitpay-showing-more-signs-of-trouble-no-longer-st-petersburg-bowl-sponsor/


http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbdtbtAkZ51qd3ppyo1_500.png

Yeah I know all what's going on.
Agreed that the blocksize should be increased soon, so with a 2MB block they would have time to work out something better like the sidechains.
Since miners have the control of how much they want to put on a block the increase wouldn't be much of a harm even with the hard fork.

blockchain.info has 6mill wallets, coinbase has 3.3mill.. i would say to be on a safe bet, lets call it 2million active users that hold some bitcoin. becuase i agree some people make a blockchain wallet for temporary purposes or just to test out some bot scripts and then dump the login.. and as for coinbase not everyone continuously uses bitcoin.

i know personally out of 10 people close to me. all using bitcoin only 1 uses coinbase and only another one uses blockchain.info.. so it could be assumed that the 3-6mill accounts only represent 12% of the population.. meaning there could be 24million+ people... but that again is speculating on a huge scale..

i think 2mill as a safe minimum is a good bet

as for the merchants.. there are actually 120,000 merchants this is because coinbase use to be a USA only and so their merchant push was limited to one country. where as bitpay was international and obviously started earlier. so there are more merchants using bitpay.

Maybe you should focus on english/portuguese translations.

I think it is good to have dialogue even if it is not something we all agree with.  I also agree that July 2017 is a long time, too much can happen by then.

Yeah, I don't know how segwit will impact the need for bigger blocks but hopefully if the real world impact of segwit isn't what they think and it is needed, they will be open to a hard fork before then. We'll see.

They are going to do it soon.

It is way better than rushed HF without consensus and proper rules (e.g. grace period).

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).

I suspect that is the case, but if there is a sudden surge in transactions caused by a flood of newcomers and vendors, that would be nice but might saturate beyond what segwit can do with 1 MB blocks.

From what I understand segwit can handle a lot more than that.

Anyway I've read from another news that the Xapo CEO doesn't wanna adopt the what these roundtable discussions plan to implement. What's up with these service providers?

They're regulated control freaks

Keep focusing on your trolling on the internet, you're truly a winner.

If you choose the 2 MB block size limit (as Classic proposed), it won't be able to handle that sudden surge in transactions either. So what's the problem again?

He doesn't have to adopt anything. Nobody can force them to upgrade either. It doesn't matter though. He can't stop the activation of Segwit as that is solely up to the miners.

segwit + 2MB might - but I agree that July 2017 is probably soon enough.

An unexpected increase is usage might require it sooner, that's all I'm saying, is that I hope they are open to doing it sooner if there is an increase that warrants it.

by getting the ball rolling in april with a (generous)70 day consensus (10,000 measure instead of 1000) and followed by a 6 month grace.
giving people about 8 months to wake up and upgrade
would mean that miners can start making 1.001 blocks by christmas this year and slowly get confidence to make bigger blocks by july2017.

but by having 7day consensus in july, and debates about what constitutes consensus for a few months, and then finally triggering the 2mb buffer in july 2017.. miners wont start making 1.001mb blocks until after july.. and wont be getting confidence to grow naturally bigger until christmas 2017..

but here is the funny thing.
this block limit debate has been going on for years, and in summer 2015 a 2mb bip was thought up.. if that was included then. even with a 1 year grace period. it would not have become active until AFTER segwit sorted out the malle issues (spring this year). meaning the last year of debates were meaningless delays for a problem that would not have happened. and for all the doomsday events to have never been doomsdays.

so why delay it any longer

and what makes me laugh is that core think its ok to release a version in november 2015, march 2016 and april 2016 and july 2016..

so if they think its ok to have 4 updates in the space of 8 months... then its certainly ok to have 1 update in that time

dont you see? 1MB holding strong.
There lies the current consensus.

using the data of people that regularly upgrade
core 0.11.2 = 2563
classic 0.11.2 = 1049

just a few weeks ago it was ~2400:~500   = 1mb 83%:17% 2mb
and now it is as shown above 2563:1049   = 1mb 71%:29% 2mb

so consensus is changing. and not holding strong

Consensus is reached every new block since 2009.

Nothing ever changed sry.

i disagree with him and strongly vote for core at this stage  8)

who cares?

You seem to have missed the "2017" part of "July 2017".  The next halving is a year ahead of this.

There's a halving in 2020 after the one in 2016 (i.e. every 4 years on average). What are you talking about?

---

---

Update: I might have misunderstood the last part.

He's just a single CEO.

No one takes that round table proposal seriously, don't we lack of these kind of announcement/proposal year over year?  ;D

1. None of the core devs are in the meeting, Adam signed that letter as "individual", these days everyone can represent himself as bitcoin CEO
2. The proposal is just a pie in the sky promise, does not provide any details about the hard fork and how it is going to be implemented
3. It is just a move trying to push in an architecture change (SegWit) that is impossible to pass chinese miners or core devs' approval in near future
4. Chinese miners will understand later that they get nothing by doing everything for Blockstream, and trash it just like they trash the classic support proposal

Wrong. There are Core developers present.
They are obliged to create an proposal and prepare the code between April and July

Almost everyone is on-board with Segwit. Have you not seen the signatures for the Core roadmap?

Useless propaganda.

klestin knows its 2016.. he is rebutting Amph who seems to think the halving is july 2017(same time as 2mb gets activated)..

so Klestin is saying that the halving is happening a year ahead(before) cores roadmap for 2mb.. not at the same time, to correct amph.

so lauda, putdown the Java book, and after you finish reading C++ for the first time, get a english dictionary.

there are 100 core devs and 6000 people running nodes. unless there are 100-6000 signatures.. its meaningless

In fact, if you carefully analyze this announcement, it is full of holes and incorrect terms(What is that "non-witness data"?), obviously written by someone who don't even understand segwit. So it is just chinese miners are intentionally making a deal, without even look at who is making the deal with them  ;D

Why chinese miners are scared by a hard fork? Because a hard fork might cause large amount of coin withdraw from their FRB operated exchanges and that may cause a bank run on them. So there are lots of shady things going behind the scene ;)

We know that bitcoin is created to prevent FRB from happening, so ironic, now FRB become the tool to prevent bitcoin from happening

haha agreed ;D

y'all never get to hardfork bitcoin, ever. (or it would be some altcoin)

the funny part is that the hardfork involves 75% consensus to get the buffer in place and then i estimate maybe 90-95% before miners then push the envelope to actually make bigger blocks, so WHEN its activated, it would be the minority of 5%-10% who havnt/refuse to upgrade that are left behind with the altcoin that cant sync, so lets call them the clamsv2 holders.

as for thinking 2mb wont happen. it will. but now the debate is just about when.

Heh you just have to bid over the one thing relevant you ever said with more stupid bullshiet do you?

the blockstream 1mb kool-aid isnt on tap anymore. you can give up that addiction and love for it.. blockstream are finally releasing kool-aid 2mb, but set a massive 16 month activation date..

so i hope you like living between the rock and a hard place. pretending you hate 2mb because its bad, but loving blockstream.. it must be hard to have thought that you should side with the 1mb shills.. but now ur left with the reality that 2mb is happening..

Whatever conspiracy theory about blockstream you are talking about, you know their product such a LN do require larger block?

Anyway be sure to let me know when you fork off.

3,300,000 USERS is not a real number. How many accounts do you have? :)  

How many from these users are owning Bitcoin? up to 1.5 milions or even less. :)

Bitcoin is a niche market like PerfectMoney.com or any other e-currency.

Read carefully:

http://bitscan.com/bitnews/item/how-many-people-really-own-bitcoins-and-why-does-it-matter

^^thanks for this!

Great point. The stupid investors must read something...so that they can pump up other money. Coinbase is like bankrupt without external funds. Their exchange company cannot be sustained from exchanges. Remember that they have financial licenses in most of USA. These licenses cost A LOT and also they have a lot of staff.
 Their monthly expenses are HUGE(do not count the lobbies that they have to pay). It's impossible to  cover them from exchanges :)

^^thanks for this!
[/quote]

from the link

the author of that article forgets to mention that some SERVICES cold store LOTS OF PEOPLES funds in one address..

so the maximum amount of people can be more than 2.5mill.. so even his own attempt to get to a rational number is still based on flawed guestimation.

but overall i think 2million seems a safe bet. as the guestimates are anything from 500k(all cold store holders) to 24million(majority exchange managed)

up to 2 million overall. BTC is not wellknown as the shitty BTC media is saying. They are just trying to manipulate...to attract more blind investors to their start ups or companies. :)

All the BTC industry is owned by a bunch of people who are controlling the main exchangers, main BTC media websites and few miners.

how many people around you, did you hear talking about Bitcoin? I didn't hear anybody. :)

I heard people talking about gold, silver, real estate investments, shares but not about..Bitcoin

Thanks for that link.
Really helpful and just shows how small Bitcoin still is.
Although this article is from 4th quarter 2014 not much of that data will have changed.

let's say 50% grow but it's too much and even so Bitcoin is nothing. It's only buzz and nothing consistent.

Thank you for the link

I liked his "with free market and competetion between teams", it might really speed Bitcoin development. We already see the full node count going up as a result of this competetion. As a libertatian, I have to agree with all he wrote. I hate monopolies, these tend to dont care about users at all.

This is what Coindesk wants. A monopol over "bitcoin" which will be an ALTcoin after April 2016.

"As a libertarian i have to agree with Goldman Sachs" xD

You mean Coinbase, right? Coindesk is something else.

Actually it is not even their idea, nor product. They're just one of the groups working on developing them. Ignore the blind propaganda.

No idea why people would agree with the CEO at all.

I dont know what you want try to imply, but I dont like fiat currency monopoly as well, thats why I try to use Bitcoin as much as possible.

I just told Brian Amstrong, the CEO of Coinbase view is good for Bitcoin: competetion is more effecient over monopoly with just one Bitcoin implementation.

i agree with you,why must be wait until next year?i think this year is not too early,its important to raise the block size. the third point also as what i think "We have a better option that is already available"

the facts are simple.

The main investors who control the big exchangers(Coinbase, Bitstamp, Kraken, Itbit, BTC china, Okcoin) wants more control over Bitcoin. Now, they can "only" manipulate the market through "agreements" between the main exchangers and trough their bots. Let's not forget that Mtgox manipulated(through a bot; it'a a fact that it was proved) the market as they wanted and they were only one exchanger( with 70% marketshare...indeed). Now, it's a cartel. :)

By having their own e-currency(that means a "new" Bitcoin), they will control everything. Their developers will do what they are asked to do. Money talks! :)

more then a year from now, thats along time, so if they wanted it to change to 2 mb right now ofc they where not going to like it to change in more then a year from now.