Bitcoin Forum

I have seen a recent spike in the number of nodes that support bigger blocks (2mb) with Bitcoin Classic. However, Bitcoin Core is still in the lead. I was wondering which would be better to support, since I have doubts on whenever bigger blocks could cause an issue to BTC's decentralization.

If it were me, I think I would go with Classic, since bigger blocks means more capacity for transactions. I would like to view your opinion about this.  :)

your opinion is perfectly valid.

let it be known by running a classic node.

also consider buying some classic hashing power if you feel strongly about your opinion  http://nodecounter.com/mining_donation_fund.php

Thanks for your reply. I was only asking which of the protocols would be better to run, in which I think that it might be Classic but I am not sure if it will be supported for long term. But other than that, I should choose whichever I'd prefer to support the Bitcoin network I guess.  ::)

long term core and classic will continue to operate on the same protocol.
regardless of if segwit or 2MB "win".
so dont worry about having to switch back to core anytime soon.
it is important to understand that by running one client over another you are endorsing there roadmap, choose whichever you feel is best for YOU not what you think is best for the network or what you think will win long term.

Both nodes have their pros and cons; benefit and risks (I shall not discuss and argue here). Although I incline to support Classic, I still think the core is doing well to fulfill the current functioning of bitcoin.

prepare for the delirious Lauda to spout his classic doomsdays to try defending why blockstream should win peoples blind faith.

hint. if he tells you classic data bloat of 2mb(4000tx potential) will be too much for the network, tell him his dream of 1mbmaxblocksize+segwit+confidential payment codes = 2.85mb for 3800 transaction potential.

hint. if he tells you it will reduce full node count. tell him his dream of people who usually download core are now prefering pruned mode, and soon no witness mode, will be by far more of a risk to the dilution of true full nodes

hint. if he tells you onchain transactions cannot compete against visa's authorization network. tell him bitcoin has 2.5mill users not 900mill(visa quotes). so does not need to be exactly like visa in the next couple years. also the stats about visa's tx/s is based on a lab test of selective 'authorization' equipment in a mock lab test. and then the results multiplied in a flawed manner to the amount of systems they have dotted around the world. also worth highlighting i said it a few times.. the stats are on the AUTHORIZATION network. not the settlement network. so it should not be used in relation to blocks.

hint if he tells you that classic is headed up by a corporations. tell him that core is too (blockstream, ergo PwC, ergo many financial firms, banks)

hint if he tells you that only a couple people are employed by blockstream. tell him to explain the finances of how the $55million is to be spend by supposedly only 2-3 people

hint. if he tells you that its just a shill game and he tries to speak latin. tell him he fails latin. jst like he fails C++, by thinking bitcoin core writes its code in java (http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453062298.0) if he read the code he would know its not java. he is simply guessing and needing to be spoonfed info

Thanks for your replies everyone.


In that case, then I will stay with Classic and support 2MB blocks. I think it would be the ideal choice (for me) to support these nodes and contribute to better scallability.  ;)

Curious: have you ever looked up what "scalability" means? How does increasing block size contribute to it?

I guess that it would allow for Bitcoin to handle more TPS (transactions per second) faster than what it is right now once the block size is increased. Since with 1MB blocks, confirmations takes 15 to 30 mins (and even more) I think increasing the block size might prevent this but at a cost of Bitcoin to become more centralized (based on what I have read here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy)


Please correct me if I am wrong. I am here to learn everyday about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.  :)

Scalability =

So it means more than adding throughput. It means building the system to accommodate that throughput. Even XT/Classic people admit that endlessly adding throughput on mainchain will make it harder and harder to run a node (i.e. be a "peer" on the p2p network). They just don't care and think that decentralization should be ignored if it means we can have cheap transactions. Because they think cheap transactions guarantees bitcoin adoption. It doesn't.

You are correct that increasing block size adds centralization pressure. The ideal would be to reduce those pressures by improving relay, reducing required bandwidth, lowering validation times to make a block size increase less detrimental to the network.

the effects of 2MB seem totally overstated

segwit is the other option and it actually increases requirements to nodes by the same amount. expect maybe TX validation times but thats not much of an issue... IMO.

the very high level view of this classic Vs Core thing is that

Classic is a simple change with a vision that the cost to operate a node will increase in the future and thats OK

Core is a complex change with a vision that the cost to operate a node should be kept low, and if fees rise thats OK everyone can use the second layer solution.

funny how bitcoin Unlimited was the first to implement thinblocks

i'm not a classic or core supporter anymore i support Unlimited.  ;D

So? It is relatively easy to jump-start a high number of nodes, especially if you have capital. There was even a recent analysis that shows that a maximum of 213 people are behind 800 nodes. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that they're promoting their Sybil attack by stacking datacenter nodes.

They will have an effect on it as it will increase the requirements for node operators. The question is whether the loss in decentralization is going to be negligible or it is going to be a bit more significant.

The main reason for someone to rush for more transactions is greed (i.e. hoping that: more people -> higher price). When scaling Bitcoin one has to be pretty conservative or else it might run into huge problems. Additionally, Core is coming up with Segwit which will also increase the capacity.

That's even worse.

I'm surprised that you still have energy arguing these, I have mostly given up posting here and made some fork test at mean time while reading other forums  :)

afaik core has everything that classic want to do, core has the 2mb increase planned within one year plus seg wit and some other features(malleability issue etc...)

so my question is why i should choose classic?

For me it comes down to trust in this regard and not to the technical advantage both of these implementations have. Less than a year ago, Gavin and Mike Hearn pitched up here and dropped XT on us.

They had ulterior motives then, and it was quickly picked up by the more technically incline people here... Mike threw a temper tantrum and left to go work for the competition and Gavin were left with a

empty bag. His only option was to distance himself from XT and to submit a new implementation that would get better support. So he quickly put 2 and 2 together and saw a lot of people were asking

for bigger block sizes. He then jumped in with a implementation to address that. {Because he knew a lot more people will support that} ... On the other hand... The Core developers had a full deck of

cards from the start, and came in with a whole set of solutions for a lot of our problems. { SegWit / Side chains ..... } I will go with the people with a long term vision.... not just a short term solution to

regain control over the development.. a so called power grab.  ::)

Congratulations, what will you support next, Bitcoin DaRealDeal?

I support to increase the size of the block. We have to do this.

Nice story about "tests".

It is worth adding that both Gavin and Garzik have not had any significant contributions to Bitcoin lately. Aside from them, Classic does not have anyone that one could even label as 'decent'. His BIP goes against everything that was learned over the years. Even Garzik strongly disagrees with the proposed grace period.

Maybe Bitcoin Original or Bitcoin Reloaded.  ::)

Not really, no.

Keep in mind that you will get no unbiased opinions here. Every single poster here gave you a suggestion based on their goals. If you made an informed decision, stick to it. If you decided to run a particular software because someone else told you its good, inform yourself. I think this[1] is a pretty good neutral article and as was suggested in it, so is this[2] person.

Whatever you decide, make sure its your decision and not the decision of someone else.

[1] https://medium.com/@slush/contentious-blocksize-wars-6fd7c07f9d90#.yef3d3ff3
[2] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/authors/aaron-van-wirdum

How come should there be a power to grab in an open source project? Writing code is power? If no one use their code, programmers have no power over anyone. It is the crowd thinking that they must use so called "core" software give programmers power. But core is not a registered company, neither a trade mark, anyone can call themselves core. Architecture wise, any bitcoin software can be called a "core" software: Blockstream core, unlimited core, classic core, XT core etc... because their architecture is the same. However I don't see how segwit can be called "core" since it is totally another architecture

I prefer to stick with the guys how have deep knowledge, contributed the most the last years and which represent a majority of the developers.And that is definitely core.

It is possible. You get to control the main implementation (currently Core); i.e. you try to make your own implementation the main one. There are only a handful of people who have Bitcoin Core commit keys right now.

As soon as you start writing nonsense such as "Blockstream core" you easily reveal just how biased and deluded your viewpoint is.

This makes zero sense.

Not necessarily, but yes.

Basically, this. Developers overwhelmingly support the Core roadmap. Wallet developers and library maintainers are overwhelmingly supportive of Segwit, despite this misinformation on this forum that "omg, too many lines of code, such complex!" Bitfury/Alex Petrov, who produce compelling whitepapers on the system from mathematical/statistical perspective and understand the limitations of p2p infrastructure, are highly supportive of Core.

I refuse to give in to this mob mentality that follows the likes of Coinbase and Bitpay -- who are concerned with shareholder profits only -- into the abyss.

Good tweet from Nick Szabo:

https://i.imgur.com/kXsEFWx.png

Indeed, no one would put their money into any team that isn't the most proved, timetested, most competent team, and that is without a doubt the Core Team.

Nick Szabo is always on point with the tweets, I also liked this one:

https://twitter.com/nickszabo4/status/692962583586947072

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZ3lzCyW0AAw0BJ.jpg

It is better not do this kind of project because all the space project are very centralized, where programmers have no decision making right

Why should commit keys matter? Git is decentralized, any git clone is exactly the same as core, so the software build from any of its clones will be exactly the same too, it is up to each user to use an implementation he like

Of course majority of the users are IT illiterate, but that does not make them more easily accept one version over another

If the commit right to a specific repository matters, then I think who controls the Github controls bitcoin, Github admin can revoke anyone's access isn't it?

Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.

god forbid we K.I.S.S ( keep it simple stupid)

its would be nice if this could be clear, i mean devs outside of blockstream coming out and saying they like segwit over 2MB.
I'm not sure there's as much support as you paint, but i really dont have much clue.
lets ask the guys that are building "iguana" https://bitco.in/forum/forums/iguana.23/
or maybe the programer of the bitfinex wallet. or idk everyone else outside of core, ofcourse core devs think core devs are right....
what does the Ether kid think?

That doesn't address the issue. Less lines of code is not by definition a better solution, particularly when it does nothing to scale the protocol.


You mean jl777? He has some reputation as an altcoin scammer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=177323); not surprising he is pushing Classic. See here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=781323.0), here (http://blog.bluemeanie.net/2014/10/nxtautodac-jl777-stolen-nxt.html), here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=806495.0) and here (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-jeff-garzik-believes-nxt-is-a-scamcoin/). Not to mention he made a fool of himself misunderstanding all the basics about Segwit in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1398994.0;all), while trying to discredit it.

Phil Potter (CSO, BFX) signed the "A Call for Consensus" document (https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.ixa8re673), confirming their support for the Core roadmap.

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/blocktrail-cto-and-bitcoinjs-co-maintainer-ruben-de-vries-segregated-witness-not-very-complicated-1453757293)
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/lawrence-nahum-bitcoin-wallet-greenaddress-already-integrating-segregated-witness-1453824522)
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breadwallet-ceo-aaron-voisine-segwit-soft-fork-first-then-block-size-hard-fork-1453914051)
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mycelium-s-leo-wandersleb-segregated-witness-a-technical-necessity-1454089393)
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Soft Fork Preferable for Political Reasons; Segregated Witness Highly Supportable (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/electrum-developer-thomas-voegtlin-soft-fork-preferable-for-political-reasons-1454349544)
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/core-developer-jonas-schnelli-segregated-witness-improves-and-optimizes-bitcoin-protocol-1454517960)

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!! ::)

why did it fork the test net? was it TOO simple?

re-read the links you post, some devs are quoted to be classic supports in there but they are willing to go along with segwit +2MB later, because it appears to be the faster option.
what does the ether kid think about this?
i feel your not being objective about this.

I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely

Because someone on the testnet was running an old version. It was extremely easy to recognize and fix, and this is why we have a testnet.


You're the one mischaracterizing all the evidence, and now I'm the one not being objective. Right. ::)

I don't know what Vitalik thinks. You should know what many Core devs already think. And I've laid out for you what many other devs in the bitcoin space think.


Okay, well then your position is opposed to all the devs that think otherwise. Such is life.

so its just me and Gavin then... everyone else rage-quit already?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/CWN0uW6ELn3pK/200_s.gif

posted nearly 2months ago.

what have they been doing all this time?

You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk

We're just patiently waiting for Gavin to rage quit. :D

Coding and testing Segwit. Libsec, Core 0.12 optimizations. I'm not sure on the progress re IBLTs and weak blocks. Segwit was targeted for code ready in April....

i think we can all agree we should atleast TRY to processed carefully....




so more then 2 weeks to Deploy

when programmers say "its relatively simple" i hear "very few human beings on earth understand this shit"
when programmers say "it shouldn't take more than 2 weeks"  i hear "We'll get beta running in 3 months and probably be working on this forever. "

It seems so.  Just check this lecture by Dr. Johnson Lau, supposed to be an segwit teacher and is giving lectures about it.
https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness

In this lecture, his explanation of bitcoin transaction is plainly wrong. So even a person giving lectures about segwit (with a Dr. degree) don't understand  segwit, how could you expect others understand anything about segwit? Yes, you just click one button and it installed!

LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any.

It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives.

" Gavin is as recklessness johnyj "
come on stop this BS....

It means you have to responsible for your own decision making. If you think you are right by selecting core, and you lose money, it is your fault. So please do your research instead of blindly trust authorities, since none of the core devs is going to compensate your loss when bitcoin price crashes and they comfortably receive large pay checks from web wallet providers

Cool story. So you ignored all the developers quoted above explaining how it is not overly complex, and how easy it is to implement, and respond with that? Why don't you begin by explaining how he is wrong rather than using your unfounded opinion to claim that Segwit is overly complex?

WTF are you babbling about? Name one thing I've said that suggest I am blindly trusting anyone.... I'm well aware no one will compensate losses; I'm a goddamn day trader.

I don't have time to go into details, but quote Pieter's own word: "It pretty much changes every piece of software that has ever written for bitcoin"

Just a comparison:
Classic only changes block size limit from 1 to 2MB, nothing else
Segwit changes transaction, each transaction now consists of two parts, while one part is hidden to old nodes. Segwit also changes block structure, each block now become two blocks while one block is hidden to old nodes

If you don't understand what this indicates in terms of complexity, then you don't need to look further into segwit, you will spend years without understanding it

All you've done is parroted the "Segwit is more complex than 2mb" line. So what? Apparently most wallet devs and library maintainers don't see it as an issue at all. So, why is that an issue?

the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined

thats the word on the street anyway.

Oh no! Someone call Gavin! Lines of code too scary for the Bitco.in crowd! Must stick to "solutions" that don't even attempt to scale the network! ::)

 Classic and Core, both of them are good. If you are using Core, you should stick to it. Thats what i recommend.
In the long Run, both will be equally better and important.

Just raise the block size to 32MB and stop all the future changes, bitcoin will be as good as platinum for at least a decade :D

I like Jeff's approach, at this stage, any large change to the protocol is extremely dangerous, should just switch the focus to how to build on it instead of changing the protocol

in the long run both will adhere to the same protocol (what ever that happens to be 2MB blocks or segwit-ed blocks).

there will be no forking off.

.... i find it silly to say that 2MB block aka doubling capacity has no scaling effect.

what you mean is it doesn't open the door for the Lighting network. ( another 5billion line scary monster of a system ;D )

you can send to TX to the payment chancel and its good for ever or untill the time is up, once the time is up the chancel gets close and if you have R you can broadcast it to blueberry pie network which will relay that cmd to the 100000 PHs bitcoin miners, because the miners operate on 0 knowledge proofs they process the TX for a small fee.
hahaha sorry, ignore that last part.

Perception is reality.  Bitcoin would do better to present a united and polished marketing message.  I see value in Segwit (for goodness sakes get it freakin' right; oh and hurry up).  I see value in a larger block size limit *before* it becomes a crisis.  It really isn't Core vs. Classic, etc., that matters.  Rather, what matters is creating a perception that Bitcoin is healthy and moving in a desirable direction.

I run a full node.  So far I have alternated between Core and Classic and am interested in running Unlimited at least for awhile.  Is there *any* sense in running more than one at the same time?

I support the Classic Bitcoin - Bitcoin Core.  (Who came up with these names??)

To me, the transaction block is like Uber Surge Pricing (http://uberestimator.com/uber-surge-pricing).  If you want to use Bitcoin when it's busy, prepare to pay a higher transaction fee to get inserted into the block.

"Eliminate bank fees!" is no longer a rallying cry for Bitcoin.  If the value and popularity continues to rise, soon it will cost considerably more to make a bitcoin transaction than an online money transfer.

is it up to us users ( who feel strongly about 2MB or segwit or core or classic or offchain or onchain, without really knowing the code ) to deliver this united and polished marketing message?

i think the idea of naming bitcoin classic  "classic" is because its more inline with what the creator envisioned as the scaling method ( bigger blocks leading to higher node costs )

so we could say this bigger block idea is the "classical method"

core's second layer is the modern method

If not us then who?

ya i get that...

but we are hardly in a posisiton to come up with a united and polished marketing message.
we all have such different views.
and poeple are rage quitting left and right.

i mean look at this.
http://s11.postimg.org/5qd9c5gr7/Untitled.png

Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin.  They turn around and write blogs or articles for various news outlets.  They can't always tell (or don't care to) which postings represent the real action.  Controversy makes for exciting news.  If they see calm thoughtful debate then they will get the sense that Bitcoin is moving in a good direction.  Compromise, collaboration; these are the tools we can use to forge a positive attitude toward Bitcoin.

i like Controversy.

i put forth wild ideas  ( MEGA BLOCKS (https://bitco.in/forum/threads/the-future-of-bitcoin-isnt-bitcoin.1018/) ) so we can have a crazy discussion .

should i stop and try and be more sensible / agreeable ?

Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything. ::)

Only if the network is reduced to your 100-economically important node model. I.e. Complete centralization

Would it kill us to just *announce* an intent to release a version with 2MB (or even just 1.1MB) block size limit?

Would it kill us to reveal some of the development and testing details showing the readiness of Segwit for primetime?  What is our contingency plan if the deployment is less than perfect?

Rage quitting is a clear sign of people not being heard/appreciated.  Passion is undeniable/desirable but *before* it comes to a boil, everyone should take a moment to argue the other side to demonstrate we all want Bitcoin to succeed.  Hmm, unless that isn't true; who in here wants Bitcoin to fail?  Disruptors.  Those unwilling to compromise for the greater good.  Those who argue/believe they are right and anyone not agreeing/adhering can't possibly have understood.

I, for one, will try my very best to understand.  I will not stick to one and only one approach to the exclusion of all others.  I will do what I can to help the Bitcoin marketing messages be effective.

"Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work"

ok so right now we can handle ~3TPS ( about the same as TX demand  today)
with 2MB blocks we can handle ~6TPS ( about twice the TX demand today )

I sorta get what you mean

i guess thin blocks would be an example of adding "scalability" in your very strict terms

Keep those ideas flowing.  There could be a winner in it.  Be prepared to be dismissed/ignored but if you see potential value then for goodness sakes get it out.  Take each protest to your ideas seriously; argue *for* that protest as if it were yours; own it.  If you are seen as the strongest debater against your idea and still it comes out on top then you will be respected.

It is much less about being agreeable and more about being collaborative.

once they realize your argument is strong, they start to ridicule you by twisting your words, semantics....

i like what your saying

you'd probaly find that https://bitco.in/forum is a much more hosiptiable place.

If only all transactions were the same.  One transaction might be small, another huge.  The 1MB block size limit acts to constrain huge transactions.  Increasing the block size limit let's larger transactions through.  That might be ok *if* the huge transactions scaled.

Suppose a small transaction has 2 inputs and takes only a microsecond to verify.  Put 2000 of these into a block.  2000 * 1us = 2000us = 2ms.  Easy.  No problem.  Double the block size limit and we can jam 4000 of these bad boys into a block and still the processing time is only 4000 * 1us = 4000us = 4ms.  Heck, my smart phone could do that.

Now suppose a large transaction has 4000 inputs (just right to fill the original block).  How long will it take to verify?  4000/2 * 1us = 2000us = 2ms, right?  Wrong.  For some reason I don't understand yet, apparently it takes (4000/2)² * 1us = 4000000us = 4000ms = 4s.  Ok, yuk, but that's still doable.  Oh yeah, we want to double the block size.  Great, we are given an 8000 input transaction beast.  What's it take to verify it?  (8000/2)² * 1us = 16000000us = 16000ms = 16s.  Ouchie.

We must give up on simple views of "scaling".  1MB gives us 3TPS (maybe).  2MB will give us 6TPS (maybe).  It might if all we ever pack in there are small 2 input transactions.

my final thought on the matter of Core or classic is that, they are BOTH right!

and we should let the free market find the perfect equilibrium between the two schools of thought.

like so:

miners have incentives to keep blocks small
users have incentives to go offchain ( once such a solution is available )
why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

segwit solves this very neatly. it removes the quadratic effect, idk how it does but it makes it linear

a short term solution to this is simply not allow a TX with 5000inputs until segwit is ready.

segwit is cool, i like it, i just dont like how its rushed, and how its passed off as the be all end all for blocklimit debate, i still think we need to bump the limit.

Some miners *might* want to keep blocks small but I just bet they mostly want to make money.  Can they make more money with small blocks and higher fees *or* bigger blocks and smaller fees?  My gut tells me the more people in Bitcoin the better.  One of the original selling points of Bitcoin was low/zero fees.  Are those days truly gone now forever?  If so then we need to reset expectations to avoid disappointment.  If low/zero fees are so compelling then some folks might gravitate to altcoins.

I am a user and do use existing offchain solutions already.  My brain (or sometimes a piece of paper).  My son and I just keep track (roughly) in our heads how much we owe each other; I buy the ski lift tickets; he buys lunch; ...; eventually we settle on chain.

I, for one, wouldn't mind removing the block size limit (well, there will certainly be some practical limit) *but* we absolutely have to address the quadratic scaling topic first.

I do wish I could get a handle on how Segwit pulls this off.

I *really* like limiting inputs.  It is very easy to defragment your wallet in small steps to avoid needing a ton of inputs.

i guess you dont like the dirty code of just simply forbiding TX with >5000inputs ( understandable ) we will probably get segwit soon in any case, so soon it'll be a non-issue.

if a miner made a 1GB block it would get orphaned so fast it wouldn't be funny.

here's a better description of why miners have strong incentives to not make a big block.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf
i prefer the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k
skip 6:00min in for the meat

so again , provided segwit removes the quadratic scaling problem, why not remove block limit altogether, code the second layer, and watch the free market come to its own preferred equilibrium!

If both of them are same in the future, would it will be better to combine the feature of both .
Means both of them using the same protocol and same block size.
It will be better.

right now they are both pushing very different things.
2MB vs segwit
right now it looks like core will win with segwit.

but let's say in 3 months segwit is not ready and still no where near ready
miners might get fed up and go with classic.
core will have no choice but to go alone with this, but they will still work on segwit and it will probably still be accepted by miners onces its ready.
so you might be right they might get combined.
its up to the miners to pick and chose which feathers they want and when they want them
core and classic only make suggestions.
competing implementations dont just drop dead when one wins over the other. and they dont fork off, they adhere to the new protocol and keep going.

I think we need to be continue with Core. If we support third party wallet/block chain, Bitcoin becomes Altcoin.

It's not really strict terms, it's just general engineering principle. When you increase system load and therefore make a security tradeoff, you look at the costs and you try to mitigate them to optimize the system to handle that load. Rather than simply allowing it to grow endlessly while degrading network performance. So the biggest bottleneck is relay and secondly bandwidth.

Thin blocks is a good premise, I'd like to see it adequately tested. Unfortunately the BU team is very limited in developers and resources and I'm not convinced any of their code is sufficiently regression tested. It also doesn't seem clear yet that it would be an adequate replacement for the relay network. But yes, that is the idea -- closing relay bottlenecks which especially hurt smaller miners as load increases. Core has already addressed a lot of the non-relay bandwidth issues (blocksonly, upload throttling, wallet pruning) in 0.12, so I'm less concerned about that in the immediate term.

Vod gets it. Vod is God.

Of course we should stick with Bitcoin Core, if something other than Core is winning this nonsense battle, then these battles will happen over and over again in the future.

Look for example at countries in the middle east. When a dictator is forced out, people are happy for a while, but then they will force the new dictator/president out once again. Why? Because they can. Nothing stops them.

That's why it is very important to show support for the current Core client. Blocks will get bigger, just have some patience. People shouldn't let shills and fud trolls cause the community to split up in various groups. We are 1 community.

If they didn't matter, there would be no Classic. This was always about power because if you ask each developer individually you are going to be left with Gavin and Garzik in favor of a 2 MB block size limit and everyone else being against it.

People who want to fork are trying to change Bitcoin.

If the people who are working on Classic had decent skills they'd help out with Segwit, but they don't. Segwit is nearing completion, however it should not be rushed.

Why would anyone waste time trying to do this?

Yup, the forkers already disagree amongst themselves on the way forward. They are uniting for the moment behind 2MB in an attempt to take over control of the repo, but this would quickly devolve once they no longer have a common enemy. A lot of XT/Classic supporters don't support a 2MB limit at all, and BU supporters don't support any limit (maybe 16 or 32MB by default); BU nodes can (and will) even fork off from one another since each individual user can throttle their own maxblocksize. ie if there is any further disagreement on maxblocksize then BU will always allow a new fork to emerge for every different maxblocksize implemented. The whole premise of their client is to break consensus and form a second fork for every node that enforces a different maxblocksize. It's pure insanity but hey, forkers gonna fork.

This has been said several hundred times: Nodes set their own block size limit depends on their preference, and so far they never set a limit higher than they consider safe, some miners even mine empty blocks, so the block size is totally irrelevant, it just a political tool for Blockstream devs to push their business solution, which are pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model which have been abandoned by industry years ago

It seems the core brand is so magic that makes people worshiping it. I foresee many bitcoin core coming up in the following months: The bitcoin Core, Core bitcoin, real bitcoin core, satoshi bitcoin core, bitcoin core SE, bitcoin core 2 ... Some of them might be a registered trademark by some banks  ;D

Will there be a day when the two wallet formats go their own seperate way one forking from the other and they no longer are interchangeable?

Source?

Rational =/= safe. Businesses act rationally; they go bankrupt all the time. And that's giving some leeway as to what constitutes "rational." ;)


What does SPV mining (to cut out idle mining time before validating) have to do with block size? Any rational miner would include the fees in their block if they had validated the prior one. SPV miners, due to shitty hardware and code, don't validate.


Please go ahead and describe exactly how this model works. Since it sounds so absurd, the burden is on you to explain it.

IIRC it was from some pool. However, one would have to validate this himself as people tend to use such charts for manipulation. You can see this clearly as there is zero indication of what this chart actually represents.

Yeah, you have no valid arguments then you try to reduce things to nonsense. Quite obvious.

Looks like some sort of votes, hence Id like to see a source to see if there is anything behind it or if its just like a poll here.

Some people seem to believe that increasing the blocksize will increase the number of orphans, and make it harder for small miners to compete. Add this to the reward halving, and it would seem to lead to mining centralisation. Would this take Bitcoin down the same track as US ISPs. The US used to be number 1 in the world ranking for Internet services. Centralisation has increased costs and pushed them down to number 26.

I found out that people here are much more IT illiterate than it appears, they even think programmers are magicians, so this trick will also work

it will most likely increase orphan rate.

but ALL miners will be subject to this mild incress in orphan rate. ( smaller solo miners simply do not exist, on one is going to run a small mining rig for 100 years in hope of solving a block on there own.)

but thin blocks might largely solve this orphan rate issue, it should incress block propagation time by about 100X.

There is no safe call when you are trying to predict future, especially when your only tool is science. Remember LTCM? A group of Nobel price winner scientists trying to make a hit in financial world and their mathematical model totally collapsed and they even need FED to rescue

Progammers should learn risk management and gaming theory before they even start to make arbitrary decisions to predict economy events

A good example is the fee market prediction: Devs predict that when blocks are full, people will raise the fee, but the reality is, when blocks become full, people go to other cryptocurrencies, from gaming theory point of view, users are not stupid to be manipulated by devs' price control

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




Why is it absurd? They are facts. If you don't understand, then you better don't use bitcoin, you will lose money if you are gambling on some concept that you don't understand

I guess you are right. In fact, I think I will have some nodes with Classic and Core as well for testing purposes. I will be running each in testnet to test some BTC apps. As for Seg Wit, I have found it very interesting since it proposes to fix transaction malleability issues.  :)

Game theory is exactly the issue--and you have failed to present any argument that remotely proves your argument from game theory perspective. What possible evidence do you have that full blocks cause people go to other cryptocurrencies? What possible causal evidence could you provide for human motives in that case? Nothing because you apparently don't know fucking shit about how logic and scientific evidence work.

What evidence do we have that when blocks are full, people raise the fee? Because....that's what happens. Recall any dust spam attack or "stress test", or any time when there is a long delay between blocks (1+ hour), and see that the optimal fee to get confirmed goes up.

If you are suggesting that alts like ETH are taking over the market cap? Well, all of their volume is traded in BTC at Poloniex. LOL. You think that is "new money" that is "not from bitcoiners" and that "this money won't ever flow back into bitcoin?".... If so then I'm afraid you weren't paying attention to the altcoin craze in 2014, while bitcoin drifted into a miserable longterm downtrend.

Your whole argument is BS. Trying to compare bitcoin to a failed mathematical model based on zero evidence? Great. I know people like you (and Gavin) are happy to break the system in any way because "it's an experiment" but don't be surprised that investors may disagree.


Facts? They sound like meaningless opinions. Point to the sources and explain exactly what "Blockstream's business solution" is. If you're referring to LN (which Blockstream has no ownership of)...explain how LN = "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model" when its premise is bitcoin payment channels that are enforceable with smart contracts, where the state of any payment channel can be committed to the blockchain at any time when a participant seeks to close it, contract timelock, etc.

You're whole "I'm too fucking stupid to understand bitcoin and I refuse to explain myself" approach is pathetic, I'm sorry to say it.

for me classic is better because they want to increase the block size of bitcoin as soon as possible and i like this idea

Did I say LN =  "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model"? Your reply already indicated that your level of understanding for core proposed solution is almost zero, trust core devs and hope for the best is your approach

I said "If you're referring to LN" because you referred to "Blockstream's business solution" without any mention of what that is, except that "it is a pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model."

So again, what is Blockstream's business solution, which you referred to?

If you are going to insult someone and suggest their understanding is insufficient, go ahead and prove it. You only make yourself look fucking retarded for suggesting it, when it's quite clear that you have no idea about the shit you talk about...

we should at least TRY not insult the fucking shit out of each other.   
brg444 is the biggest ashole on the fourms
lets just leave it at that.

I only insult those who insult first, this is also part of the basic knowledge in gaming theory, multiple games

thread title has been reorted to mods for

causing disambiguation of the name

core which has already been reserved

Your replies show that you are completely clueless and just rambling because of unknown (to us) reasons. Instead of bashing the people who have worked hard to improve Bitcoin over the years, how about presenting valid arguments? The Blockstream propaganda has no basis.

Not really, no.

Both Classic and the idea behind it is horrible. If you want to damage Bitcoin then that is the way to go.

For me, if there is no block size increase (SegWit) after May this year, I will use Classic instead of Core.

Yep. And my vote is to let this be done by Classic AND Core together. This is just a tiny compromis and saves the BTC heaven!

... KINDERGARTEN....!

Hope that does not need a convincing sharp price drop just to learn that.

... And this might be the best plan ( I d do so..)  to cash in by investing 50 mio $:

First bring all BTCoiners into big trouble by technobubble, than buy coins cheap once market reacts and finally invent nice joining-all soultion and be the hero and no techno is needed at all. ::)

Happy days!

Classic or Core . Be same more or less

So you're saying if Segwit does not get activated within this year you will switch to Classic? That's more than enough time to get it activated.

They're very different.

One has to love the conspiracy theories, right?

---

---

Update:
Not really.

I felt more searching for an proper scenario how this invemstment could pay back after this big dispute here and some just called to leave or worse not join BTC, but failed, sorry for that. Could you pls help out?

I've found it. It is a chart representing the votes from Slush (outdated version of it)[1]. Currently it looks like this:
https://i.imgur.com/6NbVdQh.png

---

---

To clarify, there is barely any support for Classic. The chart was originally just used to try and to manipulate others into believing that there is strong support behind the contentious HF.

---

---

[1] Source - https://slushpool.com/stats/#voting-results

Thanks, very interesting. I wouldnt call support for classic barely existing. Similar as with the nodes, if you remove those that have not made an active decision (not voted, not updated node software) core and classic are very close.

I would not label nodes that have not updated to "don't care". There could be plenty of reasons for one not to update in X amount of time. That being said, if you are still running 0.11.x you are in support of Core. If you weren't, you would change the software.

I would, especially if you read analyses like this one: A date with Sybil. (https://medium.com/@laurentmt/a-date-with-sybil-bdb33bd91ac3#.uu1ht7oqu)

we are voting with our money.

yeah me too,not interest of this debate because i'm not miner ;D but can you explain to me what definetly of Unlimited that support by you?
tell me the detail and dont tell me that was joke :D

Nodes are less important than hash power. You cant reasonably imply a choice for those that did not make one. Its more reasonable to assume that those still running old software either have no idea whats going on (uninformed) or dont care (uninterested). The uninformed and uninterested installed their software when there was no choice (ignoring XT here) to make.

there nearly identical.
2MB HF is offered by both sides
only diff is its a year away with core
the only real difference with core and classic is philosophical.
classic want to keep block growth ahead of transactional demand to keep the fee market without an much of an artificial pressure.
we will have segwit and a second layer with classic too, but we'll keep the blockchain as frictionless money as well.

i like they're  "free the market free the blockchain" philosophy ( if that make any sense )
i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big, there no reason to limit anything.
also i think the work with thin blocks is awesome and proves to me they are serious devs.

It just shows Bitcoin is slowly moving from centralized development to decentralized one. Ideally there should be at least 3 popular implementations with no one having over 50% nodes or hashpower, this would mean finally real competetion and increased inovation for Bitcoin.

Yes, it would kill Bitcoin to reward the whining of the rage-quit brigade.  Thanks for asking!

https://i.imgur.com/0dCWQxG.png (https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/688428065970466816)

https://i.imgur.com/6idPrJ4.png (https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/688432297733787648)

Does he really says minority should rule majority instead ???



Technical sollution to the problem like BIP109 is not politic, but given it was tweeted when BIP109 did not even exist can explain a lot, still claiming politic is bad yet his both tweets are just political is bit funny - not much thought put in the tweets in first place.


Now lets get back to the topic, Bitcoin Core 0.12 introduced very controversial feature RBF (Replace by Fee), and it was not disabled by default as one would imagine to be the norm for controversial feature. Thats the reason why we need more implementations and people flexible enought when some implementation misbehave - to get rid of development monopoly and finally start competetion between implementations.

Ah, the 2 month old tweets from Adam Back?  ???
Anyone who mentions 1.1mb must love Adam Back and his rage quit brigade blah blah  :-[

David R, I don't think 1.1mb would kill bitcoin.

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

If the majority cannot override the minority, it doesn't follow that the minority is ruling anyone.

The minority is just enforcing the rules that the entire network consented to; they aren't forcing anything on anyone. Changing the rules involves establishing a new consensus.


RBF wasn't controversial. Who complained about RBF besides a handful of muppets on r/btc and bitco.in?

It's a fully opt-in protocol, meaning that users who care about unconfirmed transactions can continue to not use RBF. RBF transactions are clearly flagged in the nSequence field, so developers don't really have an excuse for ignoring it. Many programs and platforms that trust unconfirmed transactions already regard low sequence numbered transactions as suspect and ignore them until they confirm.

Why, specifically, was it considered controversial?

https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/

Consensus ie 100% does not exist in real world in most cases, thats why you choose majority as a mechanism for choosing consensus, sometimes over 50% is enought, but you might choose higher % up to a point where there would be no new consensus possible anymore because small minority could block any change, thus rule the majority will to make change (so your wrong - no change is decission as well, and only with majority will there can be no change to the rules).



Thats just your viewpoint, I see RBF controversial and many people do not like it to be enabled by default as well, if I remember F2Pool complained for being RBF enabled by default, but Core developers used excuse it would be more complicated to change the documentation for this feature so preffer to leave RBF enabled by default instead.



Your clearly talking about Core development process, where Core contributors vote. Much different from the whole Bitcoin ecosystems where hardly anyone follows Core internal development process.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

In this case, 100% consensus exists. Hence why bitcoin = a single global ledger, rather than many disparate forks that disagree on the rules to enforce.


That's fine. Nobody forces the majority to do anything. They can fork off onto an alternative network (altcoin) if they want.


No, you just have a questionable grasp of the English language. "No change = change" is an illogical non-argument and nobody remotely intelligent falls for that bullshit.


Being enabled by default means nothing and addresses nothing I said. And stop spreading misinformation. See wangchun's ACK here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7386#discussion_r50386117

RBF is opt-in for users. That is a fact, and the only relevant one to your complaint here. In any case, I think you're confusing the real issue: whether a hard fork is contentious. Local node policies are very, very separate from the consensus rules of the network.

I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that.

"A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners.

You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules.

I see some have little faith in free market here. If miner create too big block, he will find it out after the block become orphaned. So rational miner should be conservative with his block size when there is not hard limit.

So what prevent miners from forking networks? The same as today, risk of their blocks orphaned to other longest chain. No need for some hard limit ;)



Sorry to dissapoint you, but the majority will call longest chain as Bitcoin, and the forkers with smaller chain can call their pet project as they want.

...and? What if this miner found this block first by timestamp, but some miners on the network refuse to build on it, and nodes refuse to relay it, due to its size? If there is no hard consensus rule, what is to stop miners and nodes setting local policies that reject blocks beyond certain criteria? In that case, how will they remain a network?


No, you fundamentally misunderstand how bitcoin works. Orphaning only accounts for the latency issues around relaying blocks to the network. It doesn't address the idea that nodes and miners may refuse to relay blocks beyond a certain size. If so, and some miners continue building on such blocks, we see chain forks. Likely we would have many, many forked ledgers instead of a single global ledger.

a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate.

better?

That are big misconceptions, no rational miner is going to continue working on smaller chain, because longest chain = Bitcoin. Even today there can be many forked ledgers (miners building on top of smaller chains), but there is little reason to do it thats why you dont see it today and wont see it in future when the hard limit is removed (it is beter to stop wasting electricity if you cant build on top of longest chain, unless you do some experimental pet project and dont care you mine worthless blocks others ignore).

Miners may refuse to relay blocks beyond a certain size, the same way as today they may refuse to build on top of block of certain block version number or any other reason they choose like included transaction with blacklisted coins. They dont do it because of selfish financial interest to be on longest chain + Bitcoin price

That doesn't address the assertion that larger blocks contribute to miner centralization. Mining viability over time (due to subsidy halvings) depends on fees becoming a greater share of block rewards. You're then putting some miners between a rock and a hard place: 1) increase orphan rate or 2) decrease block reward. Either way, their viability is threatened, and this disproportionately affects smaller miners/pools, thus contributing to miner centralization.

See the link I posted: The group of smaller miners loses a % of relative income. If they publish larger blocks, their loss percentage goes up slightly further.

Perhaps more important: If a group of miners is willing to relay and build on a 1GB block, it doesn't follow that the rest of the network is willing to. Are we supposed to trust miners never to disagree? Sorry, but no thanks. I prefer that node software makes disagreement (hard forking) impossible.

Again, you don't understand the consensus mechanism. Of course a rational miner will continue working on a smaller chain if the longer chain violates his consensus rules.


Actually, the limit specifically prevents any disagreement over what constitutes a valid block in regards to size. Without that limit, the entire network must trust all miners to never disagree on the size of blocks they are willing to validate and relay.

Bitcoin is built on the premise that actors will act rationally. Its functionality should not depend on rational actors being correct. Rational actors are wrong all the time; consider all the companies that are constantly going bankrupt. Doesn't mean they were irrational; it means they were wrong.

you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field.

decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!

Ah, the classic reduction to "omg socialism." Face it: bitcoin is centrally planned. Satoshi was the greatest of all central planners, for he established the money supply of 21 million coins, with controlled inflation. Can't separate engineering from planning.

You can accept that decentralization is a goal to be achieved, or not. If the truth is that you don't care at all how centralized mining becomes (therefore how much control a single entity or cartel may have over all users, include the power to double spend)... then you should come out and say it.

i did! (https://bitco.in/forum/threads/the-future-of-bitcoin-isnt-bitcoin.1018/)  :D

Okay, so you want all control over the network to be centralized among a few corporations. No thanks. We fundamentally disagree about what bitcoin is, and I will never be swayed to support such horrible, useless ideas.

I realize i am in the minority and my opinion is not appreciated, and will never be accepted by this crowd... i'm going to leave you guys to your own devices.
bitcoin IS what YOU want it to be. who am i to disagree?
truly sorry for the endless debating, i had to at least try.
its been fun, altho i disagree with your position I respect all of you, even the poeple that seemed like assholes at the time, i was attacking their belief system, their arger is to be expected...
goodbye.

You dont need trust all minners use the same maximum block size they are willing to validate and relay, because there will be always only one longest chain called Bitcoin, thats the beauty of PoW and selfish interest of miners to build only on top of longest chain, otherwise their just building worthless chain and miners will quickly learn the hard way to dont build worthless chains for whatever reason, like limiting only to 1 MB.

You should not be afraid some miners might temporary build on top of smaller chains because of their software having disagreement over what constitutes a valid block in regards to size, because they will learn the hard way by producing worthless blocks, thus they are encouraged to build on top of longest chain only next time (after they realize their mistake).



I dont think your minority, people tend to post when they disagree, at least I do.

Bye!

'Classic or Core? Which one is better?'

ha! like it's even a question...


'Segnet4, the latest Segwit test network is live, with support for Lightning Network development!'

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4cjxnh/segnet4_the_latest_segwit_test_network_is_live/?ref=share&ref_source=link

'CSV softfork is merged to Bitcoin Core'

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4cmsji/csv_softfork_is_merged_to_bitcoin_core/?ref=share&ref_source=link

No there won't be. "Longest" doesn't mean anything on its own. The only thing that matters is the "longest valid chain." Validity is determined by consensus rules. Even if there is no consensus on a block size limit, that doesn't stop anyone from rejecting blocks on that basis. If one miner accepts that block and builds on it, and another miner rejects it, "longest" chain loses any meaning. The latter miner will never accept the longer invalid chain.


If a majority of miners fork the rules to add 84 million coins to the supply, who is building on the worthless chain? The ones who broke the rules, or the ones who stayed on the original chain? Okay--now apply that to your example.


What evidence do you have that there could not be more than one worthy network to mine on? As long as it is profitable, a rational miner will do so.

Thanks for all the hints. I got a kick out of them. I've already been running Classic and think multiple bitcoin clients is good regardless of which one takes the lead right now.

The debate for classic and core has been running for a long time. On the block size increase small scale miners will be much affected. But increase is needed as high user adoption is taking place regularly.

There is no better, I believe both teams are trying to do what they believe to be best. I think the biggest problem is they both have different visions, which is ok  :) It's ok to disagree but at the end of the day it's important to take stock of all stakeholders and the ethos of what Bitcoin is or perhaps what Bitcoin isn't.

It's important to remember just because we disagree doesn't mean we're on different teams. All of the core/classic stuff, it's all bullshit, all of it. Everyone will look back at this as a small and minor disagreement. Oh and if you think we're done disagreeing, I've got news for you, we're not.

We all want the same thing and while we might disagree about how to get there, we're all on the same team.

Team Bitcoin

I agree.


I agree, adoption is happening. Why does that suggest we should increase block size?

Some small miners are on solar and micro hydro, and they run solo mines, but have somewhat spotty bandwidth.


One of the intellectual fathers of Bit coin, Luke Jr, sees that blocks are full of mostly spam, they could be cut in half (0.5MB) to better serve the purpose of uncensorable monies. Poors and spammers may use doge. 

If you want a corporation coin, then you are free to fork-off now. I'm pretty certain that the majority of people here hate the idea of a corporation coin (i.e. especially Bitcoin 'morphing' into one).

It would be a question if Classic had a decent team of developers which it doesn't.

He ain't wrong at times.

The only problem is this decission comes from artifical block size limit which is centralized regulation decision about the max block size. If this value comes from free market, ie no miner wanting to create block sizes over 0.5MB (or whatever size), then this would be fine.




There is not consensus on block size limit today. With Bitcoin Unlimited many people would accept over 1 MB blocks even today. The only reason miners dont mine over 1 MB blocks today is because they act rationally, most nodes (thus Bitcoin services) would reject such block and the chance to keep longest chain with mined over 1 MB block is zero today.

BTW Bitcoin Unlimited is very underestimated client, with good features and development. Definitively worth considering when your undecided whether run Core or Classic.

Satoshi was a central planner, setting the 21 million coin limit with controlled inflation. Engineering is centrally planned. I agree that we would probably be better off if the limit had been set at 0.5MB, but since such a consensus change would obviously be contentious, no one has ever actually bothered writing the code. Classic supporters, on the other hand, are willing to force their changes on people like me, without any real metric to even measure user support. (No, hash power does not say anything about my willingness to support bigger blocks as a user and node operator)


How so? Different miners can set different soft limits. But without a defined hard limit, Miner A can publish a block that violates Miner B's soft limit. Miner B will reject the block. Consider that Miner A has a majority of hash power. Fairly soon then, Miner A's chain will be longer. But since Miner B rejected one of Miner A's oversized blocks (which is still being mined on top of), both miners will be working on two disparate chains. In this way, the network(s) can continue to fork endlessly since there is no agreement on rule enforcement.


There is consensus because the network enforces a 1MB limit. That's a consensus rule. Even Classic is enforcing it.

Bitcoin Unlimited would cause a new chain fork to emerge every time a block was published that disagreed with one network's consensus rules, but not its own. If Node A enforces 1MB, Node B enforces 2MB, Node C enforces 8MB and Node D (Unlimited) enforces no limit, this results in at least 3 chain forks--with a new fork for every new limit that emerges that is higher than the last. What possible good can come from that? "Freedom of block size?" Well it results in chain forks and no more single global ledger called "Bitcoin."


And how much of their rationale stems from the fact that they know the network is enforcing a 1MB hard limit?

If there is no limit, how do they agree on what limit (if any) to enforce? How do they know what network nodes will be willing to relay (hence what users are willing to accept)? Any disagreement can easily result in a chain fork.

The market suggests that people are rational, but it certainly doesn't suggest that rational actors must be correct. If they are incorrect, in this case, we will chain fork into multiple networks.


IIRC even BU developers have admitted that their code is not sufficiently regression tested. Hardly any peer review and no reason to assume the code is thoroughly audited by experts in network security, cryptography, qualified systems/database engineers. Thin blocks is a cool idea, but unfortunately users report that there are widespread data gaps, and technical criticisms say its relay savings can't compete with the relay network, so it's not an adequate replacement for it.

LOL, the Monero troll quotes Adam the late adopter who bought@alltime high:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44qr31/gregory_maxwell_unullc_has_evidently_never_heard/czsthhg

Sth more that speaks for a 2MB HF this spring

http://youtu.be/_NgFIj9dBkQ

Thanks for demonstrating my point by showing us an example of the rage-quit brigade whining I was talking about.

If Bitcoin ever changes due to such nonsense (in which you malign a man cited by Satoshi's Whitepaper), it deserves to die.