Blocksize - December 2015

[LiteCoinGuy]

we will see an increase to 2-4 MB in the next 5 months i guess.

[pereira4]

I think we should be raising it as long as we don't have the LN operative and dealing with the insane amounts of transactions per second needed to make Bitcoin a viable global payment settlement network, but once LN is working we will not need to keep making the blocksize bigger. For now, I constantly change my mind about it and im not sure if we should raise it.

[Bitcoinpro]

lower the transaction fee, dont raise it !

[knightkon]

I'm sure miners won't accept BIP 101 a.k.a XT won't support XT (less than 75%), so maybe core'll be forked.
Personally, i hope BIP 103 or BIP 106 will be accepted &  used in future, it looks better than BIP 101.

Anyhow, decision'll be decided by miners. But, most of them can't or don't want handle big block size, so it'll be difficult.

I am trying to take this all in as I learn and understand all the technology here. So in dumbed down talk, can someone explain to me what it means to have the core forked and also what they are talking about with the 2,4,6,8 solution?  Thank whom ever helps in advance.

[NorthPixel]

lower the transaction fee, dont raise it !

This is a free market. If you lower your transaction fee, your transaction will not get confirmed.

[Searing]

No decision will likely to be made and Core will be forked.

yeah it seems only 'soft forks' and only 'hard forks' in an emergency.....so lots of forks that 'supposedly' will play well with one another (I hope

do not want any more in common with beanie baby collectors then hanging around forums hoping price will go up ....I have too much in common with

their lives as it is)

link

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement


anyway seems to be the point of this post by core devs me thinks?

[VeritasSapere]

I'm sure miners won't accept BIP 101 a.k.a XT won't support XT (less than 75%), so maybe core'll be forked.
Personally, i hope BIP 103 or BIP 106 will be accepted &  used in future, it looks better than BIP 101.

Anyhow, decision'll be decided by miners. But, most of them can't or don't want handle big block size, so it'll be difficult.

I am trying to take this all in as I learn and understand all the technology here. So in dumbed down talk, can someone explain to me what it means to have the core forked and also what they are talking about with the 2,4,6,8 solution?  Thank whom ever helps in advance.

It has become a more complex issue that has more to do with the governance of Bitcoin itself as opposed to the actual blocksize. I am a proponent of increasing the blocksize, and a critic of Core. Presently I am supporting Bitcoin Unlimited as my favored implementation. Here is a chronological list of articles that explain my position well:

1. https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.tkz6v39wg

2. http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate

3. https://medium.com/block-chain/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.q3sl3d11s

4. https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7

5. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

6. https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx

There is also much productive discussion in the bitco.in forum which has become the new home for the Bitcoin Unlimited community, we now have five alternative implementations that support increasing the blocksize limit which are XT, BU, Btcd, BPC and most recently the development of Bitcoin Classic has also been announced. This is how we move forward by decentralizing development.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles.html
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-232

[Ademen]

If BitcoinClassic implements the 2MB first and all the miners and most payment processors support it, will BitcoinCore exist in the future?

[Windpower]

I have a feeling that the blocksize limit is never going to change. We can't just change Bitcoin like that.

[Searing]

If BitcoinClassic implements the 2MB first and all the miners and most payment processors support it, will Bitcoin Core exist in the future?

My guess is the 'bitcoin core' devs will simply state that they will 'implement' the 2mb increase that classic wants ...immediately after

seg witness or perhaps the other way around..thus keeping control of the project ...assuming a sensible not drag'd out timeline yet...

BUT who knows they have not (unsure which camp is right/wrong on this) anyway core devs in my view ..have to keep the masses

more informed and move at a brisker pace...if they feel 'uncomfortable' about the pace of change ..they need to tell the community

and drum up more support (more coders) and have better PR of wtf their long term plans are rather then the

'we are core dev group...we know best..go away"

hopefully they will adjust ..but in any other 'project' with this kind angst/fud etc ..where both parties AGREE EVENTUALLY block

size needs to be up'd probably to 2mb...well....deal with it and adjust your coding goals accordingly (and or yell for resources to improve

timeline etc) or don't be surprised about some folk using such for FUD and their own purposes (assuming that is what 'slighted' core devs think)

its the 'big leagues now boys' real money at stake....step up or step aside ....seems to be the mantra ...

anyway I know squat ..just what it seems like to me 2mb is gonna come 'eventually' the drama is worse then the 'hard fork' imho

so if they could 'reasonably' get out 'seg witness' and then 'promptly' state soon after the hard fork to 2mb...the 'majority' of the

community would probably accept this and it would tone down the FUD imho

[Lauda]

People need to stop making conclusions on their own and posting them around here when they lack the required knowledge. What Classic is doing is bad, and Core will not follow their lead like the person above me posted. Rushing a hard fork is very bad, especially without proper consensus.
A hard fork needs time to be deployed else we risk cutting off every user and service that does not update (2-3 months as an update period is not enough; a year is more suitable). Another problem with Classic is that it is willing to fork off once they reach a lower consensus threshold. This means that they do not care about the ecosystem and will end up harming it.

[NorthPixel]

People need to stop making conclusions on their own and posting them around here when they lack the required knowledge. What Classic is doing is bad, and Core will not follow their lead like the person above me posted. Rushing a hard fork is very bad, especially without proper consensus.
A hard fork needs time to be deployed else we risk cutting off every user and service that does not update (2-3 months as an update period is not enough; a year is more suitable). Another problem with Classic is that it is willing to fork off once they reach a lower consensus threshold. This means that they do not care about the ecosystem and will end up harming it.

If the Core team tests the 2MB block implementation for 2 months, and give a 5 months notice for the hard fork, I think it is not a problem.