Bitcoin Forum

i haven't been following bitcoin and all the drama for a while so can you give me some update on block size and how are things working out.

and please keep it civil.

Group A wants to scale with at least 2MB for the current situation then look towards a long term solution

Group B wants to directly interject long term solution


Thats the non political answer :)

so nothing has changed as in implementing anything new right?
both are still "wanting" to do those things

As far as I know this is correct. There are rumors, but there are always rumors :).

Im not to sure myself at the moment but isnt segwit ready/pretty much ready to implement? Im sure i read something on this recently but ive kind of lost track on it now. Was there not also some sort of thing going on with the miners now wanting 2mb blocks? i will see if i can dig it up.

mining pools are hesitant to run either implementation right now because of controversy over a few things.
mainly the fact that for both segwit or 2mb to actually activate and for full nodes to remain full nodes. both options require 95% consensus.

after all you cant mine blocks unless mining pools upgrade and users wont remain full nodes unless they upgrade. so for everyone. upgrading will happen.

so the "hope" is that because everyone is waiting for the next "official" release. they hope that the release will include BOTH options. that way its only one download needed to upgrade everyone and everyone gets what they want.(no more bait and switching or delays, we hope)

Luke JR promised a segwit release with amendments that include a bigger base_block_size buffer(2mb).
whether that would also be "accepted" by all other core-devs in the "official" bitcoin-core aswell, is something we do not know yet

This is definitely not enough detail for anyone to properly asses the situation.
Group A (I assume Classic/forkers): Want to increase the block size limit to 2 MB. Keep in mind that this does not improve scalability, and is unsafe without added limitations because of quadratic validation time.
Group B: Is currently working on deploying segregated witness which has several improvements, one of them is the added capacity bonus.

Wrong. Core has already merged Segwit and is working on finalizing it and setting up the activation. Classic on the other hand has done zero-useful-development.

Correct. Segwit has been merged and will be released with the next minor version (0.12.2).

Without derailing the thread too much do we have any estimation on when the next update is due?  I thought it would have been more than a minor update version.  Hopefully it all goes smoothly,  i take it it is tested before release to insure that's there's no issues that could make it vulnerable to attack?

Just because it is a minor version, that does not mean that it incorporates minor changes. Core has a tendency not to release soft forks in major versions (i.e. the next one is 0.13). I believe that we will see a simultaneous release of both 0.12.2 and 0.13.0. The RC1 candidate should be released within this month.

Segwit has been in testing since 2015 (not within Bitcoin) and for another few months in Bitcoin (a few versions of segnet and then testnet). It is still being tested.

We know SegWit was released, but the 2mb block size upgrade was not included ^confused^ We are going to have a lot of people blocking this upgrade, if we do not see some sort of scaling being done, with the SegWit implementation. Luke and the Core guys created the expectation that there were to be a small increase with the SegWit implementation, and it is too late to turn back now. So everyone are standing with their balls in hand, waiting to #$$5## off to the new changes and scaling. ^hmmmm^

You don't know what you're talking about. There was never any talk of incorporating a block size increase within the same version as Segwit.

Segwit does improve scalability and will provide a capacity boost once adopted. If you don't want to adopt Segwit, then you are indirectly stating that you don't want/need more capacity.

Again, it doesn't seem like you know what you're talkign about. Segwit is supposed to solve transaction malleability and has a capacity boost as a side-effect. It will deliver this capacity increase, which should be around ~180% once fully adopted (bigger blocks have been mined on testnet already).

the miners want bigger blocks and they will fork soon if this thing will not happen

If the current system can be manipulated by a mining cartel (or political coercion), then the system is effectively worthless. Miners can't fork without the industry & ecosystem. Technically they can, but their mined blocks would be rejected by the current nodes. Such action carries great risk to both them and the remaining system. Ignorant people think that businesses running custom versions or less-maintained versions could update in a few days. This just shows their lack of experience in quality software development and testing.

oh lauda stop stretching the truth


segwit HAS NOT been running with bitcoin data.
ONLY SEGNET (different chain of data=altcoin)
ONLY TESTNET (different chain of data=altcoin)


BU, XT, classic and MANY others have had publicly released implementations available that anyone can download and also do actually relay, validate and store bitcoin data.. for MONTHS

lastly.. stop overselling segwit as the scalability solution and then in another post saying that segwit is not designed as the scalability solution..
atleast pick one and stick with it.. stop with the bait and switch crap
remember you cant segwit a segwit, so whatever small "bonus" segwit offers.. that it is.. no more.. then something completely different needs to be found
however with the blocklimit you can increase and increase.

and to save repeating myself about the exaggerations and realistic expectations
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1535248