We tried to explain the block size debate with simple words so that everybody could understand.
You'll probably want to do some research. You got some "facts" wrong.
Consensus is broken? Let’s vote!
After months of lively discussions, one of the two camps has decided to act.
Actually, both camps are "acting". There is a group that has "acted" by releasing "Bitcoin XT". There is another group that has "acted" by refusing to add an increased block size to their copy of the reference client and by declaring "Bitcoin XT" to be:
- An altcoin
- An attack
- Dangerous
Bitcoin XT is very close to the protocol people currently use, called Bitcoin Core.
That depends on what you mean by "very close". It has several differences, including the fact that it relays unconfirmed double-spend transactions.
Its main exclusive feature is an increase in block size from 1Mb to 8Mb (BIP 101)
Well, first of all it is an increase in the maximum limit on blocksize. Smaller blocks are still valid. Additionally, it is based on some triggers that may never occur. Also, it is not a static 8MB, but rather an immediate increase to 8MB, and then a doubling of the limit every few years.
Bitcoin XT is a hardfork of the protocol, meaning that the two version of the software will eventually be incompatible with each other.
Actually, Bitcoin Core could adopt the blocksize changes that Bitcoin XT implements and they might remain "compatible", but in that case they would BOTH be hard forks. "Hard fork" has nothing to do with them being compatible with
each other, and everything to do with them being incompatible with older versions. Furthermore, if XT never reaches it's triggers then it will remain "compatible" indefinitely.
Bitcoin XT full version will only be implemented if 75% of the miners adopt it.
Actually, it requires 75% of the most recent 1000 blocks solved. This essentially means approximately 75% of the global hash power, but it says nothing at all about the percentage of actual mining pools or participants.
"By mining with Bitcoin XT you will produce blocks with a new version number. This indicates to the rest of the network that you support larger blocks. When 75% of the blocks are new-version blocks, a decision has been reached to start building larger blocks that will be rejected by Bitcoin Core nodes." Mike Hearn told Coindesk in an interview.
If this happens, miners using Bitcoin Core will have two weeks to convert to Bitcoin XT before being condemned to work on an outdated blockchain.
Regardless of how soon the 75% threshold is reached, the larger blocks won't be created until after January 1, 2016.
The Bitcoin protocol currently limits block size to 1Mb, with a block being produced every 10 minutes on average. This allows the network to verify about 7 transactions per second.
Actually, it's a lot less than that. The 7 transactions per second was based on some poor (and unrealistic) assumptions about the size of a transaction. In reality, the current limit allows more like 3 transactions per second.
Compare this to Visa’s daily peak rate at more than 5000tps, and you will get an idea of how far Bitcoin is from rivaling established systems in capacity.
This statement assumes that every bitcoin based transaction must occur on the blockchain. There are many third-party services that could absorb a significant amount of this capacity. Remember that bitcoin is a currency. Visa does not transfer physical dollars all over the globe everytime someone makes a transaction. They act as a third-party to the transaction, and simply update their own database. There is no reason that there can't be similar businesses built on top of bitcoin.
At current growth rate, Mike Hearn, a Bitcoin Core developer and network capacity specialist, expects capacity limit to be reached by end of 2016, at the latest.
Because his magic crystal ball can tell him exactly how bitcoin adoption will occur?
This can yet happen sooner due to a change in Bitcoin’s adoption rate.
Or later. Especially if fees increase which will discourage the use of the blockchain for low value transactions.
The network needs to prepare for this by increasing its capacity.
It doesn't "need" to. You just want it to. Please learn the difference between what you desire, and what you need.
We can’t just wait for capacity limit to be reached
We can if we want to.
An imperfect, but life-saving solution
Life saving? How can you be so sure? Perhaps it is an "imperfect and destructive solution".
Increasing the block size requires very few changes in the Bitcoin protocol code, so it’s quite easy to do.
And yet Bitcoin XT includes several other changes.
However, releasing Bitcoin XT basically consists in kicking the can down the road. What will happen when we reach Bitcoin XT’s capacity limit?
Bitcoin XT doubles the limit every few years. Perhaps we will never reach the limit. What makes you so sure that it isn't a permanent solution, and that doubling the limit every few years is just "kicking the can down the road"?
Even a dynamic capacity limit isn’t a sustainable solution, for mainstream adoption requires a different scale.
You express this
opinion, and you expect us to take your word for it without any explanation of why you think so or why other's beliefs are wrong.
Everybody nonetheless agrees that something needs to be done to change the Network capacity.
No. Not EVERYBODY. I think you are mistaken on that. You said so in the beginning of what you wrote. Remember?
"some of them even stating that it should never happen"
