Gavin Threatens to Quit Bitcoin Development and Join Hearn's Fork

[Nancarrow]

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them.

Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner. 

[moriartybitcoin]

I don't see any reason to panic .. what is the worst that can happen with the fork?  It's more of a technical issue for the nerds .. not affecting consumers

[connectthebots]

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them.

Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner.  

Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya.

[redsn0w]

Just for fun:

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

I do not think, the unique secure thing is that the miner fee will drop dramatically. Because of the blocksize raise I am sure each tx I will send it will be surely included in the block (Also with a low fee).

[moriartybitcoin]

I think Gavin has lost all credibility within the bitcoin community now ..

[redsn0w]

I think Gavin has lost all credibility within the bitcoin community now ..

Yes, but he is still a bitcoin core dev... the unique thing we can do (or you can do) is "not follow his fork" if we don't agree with his choice but I am sure that at the end a lot of people will lose some real money during the existence of the two chains.

[Nancarrow]

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them.

Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner.  

Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya.

Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.

[achow101]

Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.

However, if it was the bottleneck, then we would see tons of 1 Mb blocks right now, and there aren't. The average blocksize right now is around 0.5 Mb.

[redsn0w]

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them.

Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner. 

Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya.

Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.

No, the actual bitcoin can manage ~7 tx/sec... stop to say thing really no sense. Again, bitcoin should not compete with visa if we are talking about how much tx can manage *sec...because visa or other system will win surely. Bitcoin should compete as trust,rapidity and not chargeability.

[Amph]

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them.

Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner. 

Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya.

Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.

No, the actual bitcoin can manage ~7 tx/sec... stop to say thing really no sense. Again, bitcoin should not compete with visa if we are talking about how much tx can manage *sec...because visa or other system will win surely. Bitcoin should compete as trust,rapidity and not chargeability.

it's more around 3-4 tx per second, because there are multisig, and because one trasaction includ input and output, 7 is just far-strected...

[jabo38]

just increase the block size and make it scalable.  it is silly that people want to keep it small.  Bitcoin needs to scale to grow. 

[redsn0w]

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them.

Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner. 

Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya.

Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.

No, the actual bitcoin can manage ~7 tx/sec... stop to say thing really no sense. Again, bitcoin should not compete with visa if we are talking about how much tx can manage *sec...because visa or other system will win surely. Bitcoin should compete as trust,rapidity and not chargeability.

it's more around 3-4 tx per second, because there are multisig, and because one trasaction includ input and output, 7 is just far-strected...

"If you’re not really a fan of digesting the technical aspects of Bitcoin and how it works, this probably wouldn’t be of concern to you. However, chances are that most Bitcoin users from all around the world hope that Bitcoin will actually become the currency of the future, but how can that really happen in the case that it currently only handles 7 transactions per second? Yes, that’s right. Each second, only 7 people are able to make a transaction, which is mostly due to the block size limit of a Bitcoin. To put things into a better perspective, only 420 people can make a transaction during the same minute. While this may seem like a large number, it definitely isn’t as nobody wants to wait minutes or even seconds before a transaction is actually completed."

Source: http://themerkle.com/coins/overcoming-7-transactions-per-second-bitcoin-limit/

Most probably the article is wrong but I have aòways thought 7 tx/sec (now the average size of each block is 0.55 MB).

[connectthebots]

Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.

That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them.

Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner.  

Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya.

Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.

No, the actual bitcoin can manage ~7 tx/sec... stop to say thing really no sense. Again, bitcoin should not compete with visa if we are talking about how much tx can manage *sec...because visa or other system will win surely. Bitcoin should compete as trust,rapidity and not chargeability.

it's more around 3-4 tx per second, because there are multisig, and because one trasaction includ input and output, 7 is just far-strected...

A decentralized system at this current stage cannot compete with a centralized system in terms of speed. Not in the least. Trying to put Bitcoin against VISA in speed will always be a losing battle for the moment. So...

[achow101]

"If you’re not really a fan of digesting the technical aspects of Bitcoin and how it works, this probably wouldn’t be of concern to you. However, chances are that most Bitcoin users from all around the world hope that Bitcoin will actually become the currency of the future, but how can that really happen in the case that it currently only handles 7 transactions per second? Yes, that’s right. Each second, only 7 people are able to make a transaction, which is mostly due to the block size limit of a Bitcoin. To put things into a better perspective, only 420 people can make a transaction during the same minute. While this may seem like a large number, it definitely isn’t as nobody wants to wait minutes or even seconds before a transaction is actually completed."

Source: http://themerkle.com/coins/overcoming-7-transactions-per-second-bitcoin-limit/

Most probably the article is wrong but I have aòways thought 7 tx/sec (now the average size of each block is 0.55 MB).

I feel that the tx/sec measurement is misleading. With the current limit, a block can have about 5000 txs. This averages down to 8 tx/s and with the varying size of transactions and the extra data with a block, about 7 tx/sec. However, this doesn't mean that only 7 txs can be created and broadcast per second. You could theoretically have 5000 txs broadcast per second, and have 5000 tx/sec. But, only 5000 txs are put into a block and confirmed, which means that for more transactions to be confirmed, a larger block size is required.

[Amph]

i was wrong on the limit 7 too, i thought as well that it was around 7, but this guy corrected me, and he have a point

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1070709.msg11458645#msg11458645

[redsn0w]

i was wrong on the limit 7 too, i thought as well that it was around 7, but this guy corrected me, and he have a point

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1070709.msg11458645#msg11458645

Thanks for the thread, here an interesting reply:

but another question could be raised now, does 140 per second are enough if we reach fully adoption? or we need to raise it again in the future?

That's the problem we really care about. we can't raise it again and again. We should find a way to solve this problem forever. That's the real solution for us.

I think he was (is) right, because this is not a solution at all... later the dev should increase again the limit and 20 MB will be really useless and we start a new 'conflict' for 100 MB or more....

Bitcoin should not be in competition with the other system of payment (in a tx/sec point of view). It should compete in other way...

[dballing]

If you allow Gavin to do this whose to say he won't do it again in 3-4 years??? First it's a dispute over blocksize, then what comes next?

[crazyivan]

If BTC s all about decentralization, one person must not effect BTC development.

On the other hand, I think he s right and XT is a way for BTC to go.

[mashcom]

If BTC s all about decentralization, one person must not effect BTC development.

On the other hand, I think he s right and XT is a way for BTC to go.

Without him a lot of people will dump BTC so he is needed in the bitcoin world but he should not say these things.... you and me and all the other users are free or maybe it is not right what I'm saying?

[redsn0w]

If BTC s all about decentralization, one person must not effect BTC development.

On the other hand, I think he s right and XT is a way for BTC to go.

Without him a lot of people will dump BTC so he is needed in the bitcoin world but he should not say these things.... you and me and all the other users are free or maybe it is not right what I'm saying?

Yes of course, we are free to choose if follow or not follow the gavin proposal but also if the majority of normal users like me and you (not miners) will stay in the actual chain and the big miner farm will follow the other chain ... then in that case it will be really a problem.