Bitcoin Forum

When was the 1mb introduced?  My understanding because of spamming attack early on.

Why 75% consensus? 
That is of nodes who have implemented a change in protocol? 
How is that figure calculated and agreed upon?
Once consensus is reached, and nodes running that protocol version drop less than 75%, the BIP is still remains right?

It was in the 'days of satoshi', albeit I'm not sure exactly when. Initially it was 32 MB, albeit it was changed when they realized that the network could be attacked.
This isn't any form of consensus. You're talking about the controversial HF attempt; that is actually a power grab.
No; it has nothing to do with nodes. It is 75% of the last mined blocks (so miners).

it's also true that back then there was a reason to attack the network with 32mb, but right now it make much less sense to do it, so that point is a little fud at present

that % of consensus is there to ensure that the new chain will prevail on the other, if you do 51%, then a shift to the previous version can be more easily

actually i remember it was 90%...

1mb is just a good number for today's average computer in people's bedrooms, and given that we have segwit now, it's not necessary to risk a hard fork.

In the future when the average computer is better, it will be ok to raise it, right now it's not really needed, certainly not at the ridiculous Classic schedule.

Thanks all who answered, its clarified a lot of things for me.

75% of how many mined blocks?  All of them?  or last n?

750 out of the last 1000 (IIRC) and a 28 day grace window is what Gavin has proposed. Obviously this is very dangerous and HF's should not be rushed. Even Garzik confirmed this in his latest statements (https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-upgrade-governance-hard-forks-and-segregated-witness-942885e0ce58#.fvqn214vy).

Thanks for that.  I read it on the XT page, but wasn't sure it applied.

Forget about XT, it has died long ago. I was talking about the proposal that Gavin implemented in Classic.

I will say that I do not claim to understand much of the block size debate as the technical details quickly become overwhelming. The one thing I will say is from watching this unfold over the past months, first with XT, and now with classic versus core, is that one side (classic) always seems to be pushing this "we must upgrade now or we are doomed" philosophy while the other side (core) has a more "we realize the blocksize issue must be addressed but we also want to be careful when we introduce changes to the protocol..." type of philosophy.

I am no expert in any of this, but the "we must change now or BTC will die" type of rhetoric does not resonate as well with me as the seemingly more reasoned response that core offers.

It was introduced by Satoshi sometime around version 0.3.

He never gave an explanation why, but he did say that the limit
was not an absolute one; a change could be "phased in"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

You should keep in mind there are radically different perspectives on this question. I think that the blocksize should be increased, I support Classic in doing so. It is not a power grab, it is actually how the governance mechanism of Bitcoin works, if anything it is the people that are against a hard fork that are attempting to subvert this governance mechanism in Bitcoin which is meant preserve the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol. The miners vote, since proof of work can not be manipulated as easily and because the miners incentives are aligned well with the economic majority.

Here are a few articles that explain my perspective well, you can also check my post history. I have been having in depth discussions for several months now, even with Laura who has already posted his opinion earlier in this thread.

http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate (http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate)
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7 (https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7)
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html (http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html)
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx (https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx)

forget about XT and Classic. gavin made a proposal that can be implemented in Core.
(but wait core prefers to not protect the community by adding it incase it happened. and stick its head in the sand and vehemently deny that its a possibility)

So how can we help bitcoin classic? By running the Classsic nodes? or by mining the Classic blocks (which I have no idea how)?

Of course there are. Wrong perspectives such as yours. This has gone beyond 'agree to disagree':
::)

---

---

You don't. If you truly support the fundamentals that Bitcoin was built on, you start running another few Core nodes.

lol Lauda advertising a core sybil attack.. :D to fake real demand.
hey everybody lets get core lovers to run 5 nodes each. for no practical or real life useful reason but purely to perform a sybil.

wait.. another thought.

if you truly support the fundementals that bitcoin was built on.
open, transparancy, freedom to innovate, not owned by corporations, not controlled by a single entity,

then throw that moral mindset in the bin and download blockstreams core-perate program, that doesnt allow freedom of innovation outside of their company