So they want to hardfork Bitcoin

[sgbett]

So are we trying to centralize bitcoin than to just a few big players? or is this supposed to be
a currency away from the major banks. Because the big players who run a 6tb blockchain will be the new banks.
as an avg joe. I don't trust any of the wallets yet. I prefer core/wallet currently and 30gb block chain is stupid now.
Great we both have the same experience big woop
except I cut my teeth on a trs-80 so I guess I could count the 80's too

I know what you mean, but I had to learn the hard way to dissociate between my ideals and reality.

The internet was supposed to be peer-to-peer, and for a long time, I was putting the blame on NAT, providers, IPv4 address space depletion, failure to embrace IPv6 correctly etc. That was before I realized that Average Joe didn't care all that much about the peer-to-peer internet. Same goes for net neutrality.

I'm still using my own mail server on my own domain name, and for many years I was maintaining a dedicated network infrastructure for the company I was working for. Then came the cloud computing era, and it became increasingly difficult to justify maintaining our own mail servers, the even the web servers were virtualized into some cloud services, etc. Eventually, as a sysadmin, I was fired because I wasn't useful anymore, all the services that I did provide internally were redundant with Google, Amazon, Rackspace etc.

So be it, I've learnt it the hard way. You can have a dream, ideals, and tons of reason to believe in it, but the reality check is coming sooner and later to sweep it right in front of your eyes. Better learn to adapt and foresee, that was my lesson.

sanity. so refreshing!

[DeathAndTaxes]

Than the blocksize should have been coded the way he intended originally instead of what we have now.
hard fork for just this; is stupid.

The original protocol had no limit on block size.   The 1MB limit was simply added as a temporary measure to prevent denial of service attack.  At the time the average block was <50KB so it was considered a pretty huge limit.   It was never intended to be permanent until the end of time.

[sgbett]

Than the blocksize should have been coded the way he intended originally instead of what we have now.
hard fork for just this; is stupid.

The original protocol had no limit on block size.   The 1MB limit was simply added as a temporary measure to prevent denial of service attack.  At the time the average block was <50KB so it was considered a pretty huge limit.   It was never intended to be permanent until the end of time.

Once again mundane truth scoffs in the face of speculative hyperbole!

[JLynn171]

agree seems the stability of the market plus tings of this nature are hurting the overall view of BTC lately

[r0ach]

In my earlier post, I talked about how there was an issue of small block sizes leading to an off-chain, possibly fiat or fractional reserve Bitcoin environment.  Now that I've thought about the issues more, I'm not quite sure raising the TPS to Gavin's intended levels does anything to solve that.  I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this aspect of block sizes.  If his "fix" does nothing to solve this possible problem in the future of Bitcoin, why even bother raising it if we're going into an off-chain environment anyway?

The only purpose in raising it would be if he forsees a failure of block reward subsidy to secure the network.  If the marginal TPS upgrade isn't enough to stop an off-chain environment, the block reward subsidy problem will still exist unless Bitcoin is run as a non-profit utility by some random organizations, payment processors, or governments.  Overall, it's a very complex scenario that requires people to make assumptions about future transaction levels, both on and off-chain...

[sgbett]

In my earlier post, I talked about how there was an issue of small block sizes leading to an off-chain, possibly fiat or fractional reserve Bitcoin environment.  Now that I've thought about the issues more, I'm not quite sure raising the TPS to Gavin's intended levels does anything to solve that.  I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this aspect of block sizes.  If his "fix" does nothing to solve this possible problem in the future of Bitcoin, why even bother raising it if we're going into an off-chain environment anyway?

The only purpose in raising it would be if he forsees a failure of block reward subsidy to secure the network.  If the marginal TPS upgrade isn't enough to stop an off-chain environment, the block reward subsidy problem will still exist unless Bitcoin is run as a non-profit utility by some random organizations, payment processors, or governments.  Overall, it's a very complex scenario that requires people to make assumptions about future transaction levels, both on and off-chain...

Las time we started to butt up against the block size limit, it only required a 'soft' fork to change the block size. If we start to butt up against it this time it takes a 'hard' fork to change the block size. (my understanding at least).

As it requires a hard fork, its probably wise to get that sorted *before* we start butting up against the limit.

I'd agree it only buys time though. Better to have more time than less.

Testing with 20mb blocks might not mean that we go straight to 20mb blocks, it might be that the hard fork implements the 20mb as the hard limit, but we only go to 2 or 5 meg blocks with a soft cap (like it used to be before 1mb blocks). Just speculatin'

I don't know if the outcome will be net good or bad, but I think the intention (buy time) is good.

[HarmonLi]

Is something still a 'hard' fork when 99% agree just to follow the proposal. It inherently becomes the 'real' chain, anyways. I think the difference between smoothly done integrations of new things and amendments and a hard fork is very small.