The important thing is to get a majority of the miners to agree to raise the limit to 8 MB (or some other common value in that ballpark). Then they need only agree for a date to start doing so, and tell the world about it. Which software they will use for that is irrelevant, as well as the method that they use to get into agreement, announce their decision, and enable the new limit. If the Blockstream developers do not cede, the miners can either use another version, or take the Core base and patch it themselves. All major miners suerly have enough programming expertise to do that. Unlike whatever lunatic scenario your come up with trolfi know that miners trust core and they will do whatever core tells them they should do. And that's not gonna be 8 MB. |
|
|
|
|
Let's be realistic Bitcoin is not a consumer ready product and won't be for a couple of years.
|
|
|
|
A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.
Dynamic dosn't mean infinite. Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home. for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain. Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin. now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap. every thing else is FUD. “We do support big blocks if it is implemented in Bitcoin Core. But we believe the whole ‘Bitcoin’ XT thing is manipulation,” Chun said. “While the question whether and how to increase the block-size limit is a technical one, the Bitcoin Core and ‘Bitcoin’ XT issue is political. By introducing ‘Bitcoin’ XT, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are splitting the community. Totalitarianism and dictators cannot co-exist with the free and open-source software spirit.”
Chun’s opposition wasn’t subtle.
“Boycott ‘Bitcoin’ XT. Bitcoin Core forever. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn should resign,” he said.  |
|
|
|
A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.
Dynamic dosn't mean infinite. Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home. for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain. Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin. now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap. every thing else is FUD. that's a whole load of stuff I did not state. what was the purpose of saying it in reply to my comment? Don't mind him. He's panicking. |
|
|
|
The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.
That's the whole point. Trust ideas, not men. |
|
|
|
"surpass Visa" is the most irrelevant claim I have ever heard, it is like a cruiser that carries 3000 person are trying to challenge the speed of a F35 jet plane
The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfThat may be irrelevant, but that was part of the initial the goal ... BIP 100 is not so bad in the midterm (2-5 years), So that's a good start to me too. Indeed, but do we really want this debate again in 2-5 years though? Not me. This white paper is over 5 years old can we stop quoting it like it's actually relevant to the reality and new technical challenges we've observed over the years? |
|
|
|
How about this one:
I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.
I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.
This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only. No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size. BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes. Yes maybe if you are totally ignorant about what sidechains offer then yes you could say they replace bigger blocks. Those who actually have a clue and don't have a tendency for pulling things out their ass will know this ain't the case though... |
|
|
|
Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time.
Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them. The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks. This assumes everyone will want to transact on sidechains which is obviously not true. More importantly not everyone will use the same sidechains and therefore transfer of coins between them necessitate large size transactions which compete for regular transactions in blocks. Don't let the trolls fool you. The sidechains business model does not, in any way, suffer from larger blocks. It is more likely it would benefit them so your Blockstream paranoia is just that, FUD. |
|
|
|
wasn't just laughing about the fact that people have been touting slush pool on the side of xt so it's funny to see them come out and say they wouldn't run it. Besides, If you can't see the difference between xt and just running big block patch on core that's your problem.
Well, I find it funny that people care about whether others run XT or Core; since that choice, besides being irrelevant, is practically invisible from the outside. Even the difference between the various BIP100s is not important at first. The fact that you are too dense or disingenuous to understand the differences between XT, Core & the various BIP1xx does not make it true Stolfi, go play outside won't you? You brain is in need of much needed fresh air. |
|
|
|
A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.
Dynamic dosn't mean infinite. Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home. for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain. Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin. now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap. every thing else is FUD. FUD Miners will be able to merge mine sidechains. "Remove the cap" You realise how clueless you sound when you say such a thing? You think you figured it out and EVERYONE else is too dumb to understand it !? Well understand there is no support from any sides for lifting the cap completely for absolutely good reasons. So enjoy the crow because your dreams are about to be crushed, repeatedly. By that I mean: -XT is DOA -8MB blocks are DOA -Blockstream will save the day -Sidechains will be a resounding success Enjoy the little time you have left pretending "things are working your way" |
|
|
|
BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.
Both will get tossed aside once our good folks at Blockstream release their BIP for a flex cap  And when that happens, we win. Once blocks can grow at their own rate, blockstream will be in competition with native bitcoin, with no unfair advantage. And thats really whats going on here. Nobody gives a shit about XT v. Core. Its about maintaining a level playing field.  Blockstream was never meant to be in competition with Bitcoin and definitely could not pretend to any "unfair advantage". good morning lambtroll |
|
|
|
BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.
Both will get tossed aside once our good folks at Blockstream release their BIP for a flex cap |
|
|
|
Frap.doc: "any ideas where to rehost "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP"? this is the only 1 i'm aware of: http://bitco.in/forum/" The cheerleaders of banning and censoring still don't realise that they are the best supporters of their enemies. That's amazing.  XT is dead |
|
|
|
By all accounts the actions of Mike & Gavin warrant far more suspicion than conjectures about Blockstream's influence over the block size decision.
You have your nose, I have mine...  Seeing as Blockstream would clearly benefit from block size increase, please entertain us with your arguments. |
|
|
|
Does it have to be the compromised shitcode of XT: definitely not
There is a version of XT with the block size limit increase only, without the other controversial changes. If you don't trust XT, but (for some bizarre reason) you do trust Blockstream, you can take a copy of BitcoinCore and apply the size increase patches from XT yourself. There may be a copy of that out there, too. Indeed, if you are not a miner, you can just take the BitcoinCore code and replace the one line where it says "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000" by "32000000". That way you will accept big blocks if they are in a blockchain that is longer than any other. There are some hypothetical situations when that will be the "wrong" chain for a block or two, but those situations may occur only briefly sometime in 2016, and will not be different from the orphan blocks that happen 2-3 times every day already, Stolfi did Blockstream took your daughter out for dinner and brought her back late or something? Your butthurt is something else. By all accounts the actions of Mike & Gavin warrant far more suspicion than conjectures about Blockstream's influence over the block size decision. |
|
|
|
The same kind who'd be looking for bargains when the sky is falling.
OMG!!! The sky is falling!  Give me a break! Chinese stocks increased by 10x over the last 7 years - what is a small 15% correction... lets get things in perspective here... More like 40% from its peak this summer... |
|
|
|
No. I believe Chinese got out of BTC or LTC to buy cheaper Chinese stocks... That doesn't make any sense. A quick look will tell you no one is buying Chinese stocks at the moment. I know we Bitcoiners like to catch falling knives but this China situation is something else... |
|
|
|
China crashing worse than Bitcoin Down 15% in 2 days !! |
|
|
|
Chinese stocks getting slammed again  |
|
|
|
thing is, people seems not to grasp the complexity of the matter: it is indeed highly political.
mass adoption will not improve bitcoin's store of value, it is quite the opposite actually, it will flood and drown it.
but it is so not going to happen anyway, even if you "scale it" in advance. sry people wake up.
people are too much anticipating, buying the fake dreams of them antonopoulos, gavin et al, saving the planet with free insta-frappucinos.
but it's its scarcity both in cap and transaction that will allow it to surpass any regular investment.
i mean fuck look at the damned financial markets all around the world that are on the edge of a massive collapse!
it is its robustness against human miscalculations, its decentralization, its permission-less-ness and its security that matters.
why always this urge of Quantitative Easing everything?
that is so wrong on so many levels and in total opposition with bitcoin's fundamentals.
i do hope its antifragility would make bitcoin rise up from xt's hashes.
but for now, gavin et al had exactly what they wanted, that is dividing the community and induce fear that it is not such a good investment.
the rules should be set in stone, and not subject to any major modification and by anyone, or that would create a precedent.
for example, just look at what them politicians are doing with the euro and greece! they rightfully fear to create that precedent of exiting that stinky zone!
but hopefully, not like the euro, bitcoin is an investment! not cash, not pocket money!
it is a Privilege, as in the privilege of securing your wealth from the banksters and bypass them!
so bitcoin is bound not to be free to transact with. nevermind, just HODL ffs!
otherwise it will just be a pale copy of visa/mastercard/paypal and it will sink, because it simply cant compete.
thats why its price is stalling now. you cant have both an investment and pocket money. by definition it is not the same.
so get your shit straight and tell them egomaniac forkers to gtfo of bitcoin! starting with them two usg moles gavin and hearn.
 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
