Is Blockstream the reason why 4 core developer won´t increase the blocksize?

[shulio]

this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)

One people to decided the whole future about bitcoin fork? Not even in a dream that people will accept this. Satoshi could be the only one for this because he is the original creator of this and he knows what the best for this now or in the future, but for now we need a team of core developer for it to decide what the best for it

[1715555377]

1715555377

[1715555377]

1715555377

[spud21]

this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)

and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?

We don't know if satoshi was a group or a single man.
In any case, where the hell is satoshi? come back man, we need your opinion now more than ever. I hope his accounts didn't got hacked along with his gmx address...

If he/she/they still has the keys the the earliest blocks he/she/they could sign a message saying which devs plans he/she/they prefers, if any. Alternatively he might have a separate solution that nobody else has thought of yet. However, I thought he suggested increasing the block size if became necessary in the future.

[shawshankinmate37927]

...The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.

But the 1MB limit wasn't part of the original design.  Here, Gavin explains:

Back in 2010, after Bitcoin was mentioned on Slashdot for the first time and bitcoin prices started rising, Satoshi rolled out several quick-fix solutions to various denial-of-service attacks. One of those fixes was to drop the maximum block size from infinite to one megabyte (the practical limit before the change was 32 megabytes– the maximum size of a message in the p2p protocol). The  intent has always been to raise that limit when transaction volume justified larger blocks.

[anderson00673]

Thanks for the explanations on the details of this.  I may not understand exactly how this stuff works but I can make sense of it without being able to code it.  I wonder if anyone involved cares to make a statement here?  Somehow I doubt they will bu tit would be nice.  This is a serious accusation, something that could end careers.

[QuestionAuthority]

...The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.

But the 1MB limit wasn't part of the original design.  Here, Gavin explains:

Back in 2010, after Bitcoin was mentioned on Slashdot for the first time and bitcoin prices started rising, Satoshi rolled out several quick-fix solutions to various denial-of-service attacks. One of those fixes was to drop the maximum block size from infinite to one megabyte (the practical limit before the change was 32 megabytes– the maximum size of a message in the p2p protocol). The  intent has always been to raise that limit when transaction volume justified larger blocks.

Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?

[nicked]

I trust Greg Maxwell far more than Gavin Andresen. Gavin has proven to be nothing more than the token paid dev of Bitcoin big business. The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.

Since when did it become some sort of "sin" to correct flaws? Why don't we "question authority" and fix this thing.

[QuestionAuthority]

I trust Greg Maxwell far more than Gavin Andresen. Gavin has proven to be nothing more than the token paid dev of Bitcoin big business. The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.

Since when did it become some sort of "sin" to correct flaws? Why don't we "question authority" and fix this thing.

Fix which problem? Just this one or should we correct the other issues with this fork too. I am questioning Gavin's authority. Why should he decide alone?

[IIOII]

Op's proposition is an ad hominem attempt to occlude the valid objections against Gavin's and Hearn's "rush-it-now" blocksize increase.

People should read and think:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

[tvbcof]

As a long term observer I think it almost certain that a more accurate valid question would be:

  "Is the increased block size method of scaling the reason why 4 core developers and many others have joined Blockstream."

Speaking for myself, I would bet my bottom dollar bitcoin on Maxwell, Back, etc vs. Hearn and Andresen.  That is to say, if the value base for a fork (be it Gavincoin or other) were taken from the existing blockchain, and if there were a 'forced spend', I would do so on an effort spearheaded by the blockstream guys.  I'd just sell is Hearndresen's fork required that and take whatever fiat I could get and move on.

Ideally, of course, nobody would require a forced spend, or if they did it would be after their solution was well established and proven.  It is the case that a forced spend could clean up some cruft and allow a more realistic, forward-thinking, and decentralization friendly solution to go.  It is also true that a new alt could be created but in that case the boot-strapping issue comes to into play more.  Maxwell et-al have the credibility to possibly pull it off however.  That's my own persona read of course.

[ronald98]

...The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.

But the 1MB limit wasn't part of the original design.  Here, Gavin explains:

Back in 2010, after Bitcoin was mentioned on Slashdot for the first time and bitcoin prices started rising, Satoshi rolled out several quick-fix solutions to various denial-of-service attacks. One of those fixes was to drop the maximum block size from infinite to one megabyte (the practical limit before the change was 32 megabytes– the maximum size of a message in the p2p protocol). The  intent has always been to raise that limit when transaction volume justified larger blocks.

Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?

Satoshi said it can be phased in at a predefined block number far in the future. By the time we reach that block most people will be running the new clients.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[QuestionAuthority]

...The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.

But the 1MB limit wasn't part of the original design.  Here, Gavin explains:

Back in 2010, after Bitcoin was mentioned on Slashdot for the first time and bitcoin prices started rising, Satoshi rolled out several quick-fix solutions to various denial-of-service attacks. One of those fixes was to drop the maximum block size from infinite to one megabyte (the practical limit before the change was 32 megabytes– the maximum size of a message in the p2p protocol). The  intent has always been to raise that limit when transaction volume justified larger blocks.

Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?

Satoshi said it can be phased in at a predefined block number far in the future. By the time we reach that block most people will be running the new clients.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.

[tss]

Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.

nice.  thats a great way to push this change.  promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich. 

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.

nice.  thats a great way to push this change.  promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich. 

Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.

[repentance]

It is time for Satoshi to step out of the darkness and to have his/her/their say.... Just a shove in the right direction.  

LOL if you don't think people would attack Satoshi for being "out of touch" with Bitcoin as it exists now if his "shove in the right direction" didn't align with their personal agenda for Bitcoin.  For large amount of users (and miners, and Bitcoin services), ideology is irrelevant and their primary concern is whether any changes increase or decrease the chances of them making a significant profit in the short-term future.  Whether Bitcoin is going to be around in 20 years, much less 50 or 80, is utterly irrelevant to them and always has been.

[jeannemadrigal2]

I found this earlier:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075510.0

It is in the press release section.  It is a thread about an interview with Gavin and he talks about the 20mb size and other related things.  I think everyone should listen to this it might help to put things into perspective.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

This warrants more community investigation, and should we find it to be true, we boycott Blockstream and go with the 20MB increase.

It makes no sense to reduce it to some sort of conspiracy theory.
The lightning network has positive features and negative ones, the 20MB increase has positive and negative ones as well.
Ideally, we would need boot.

[virtualx]

this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)

and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?

We don't know if satoshi was a group or a single man.
In any case, where the hell is satoshi? come back man, we need your opinion now more than ever. I hope his accounts didn't got hacked along with his gmx address...

That's possible with the recent hack. I don't think Satoshi will be back on this board, for two reasons: 1) he owns a lot of bitcoins  2) not everyone may like the bitcoin project

[BillyBobZorton]

this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)

and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?

We don't know if satoshi was a group or a single man.
In any case, where the hell is satoshi? come back man, we need your opinion now more than ever. I hope his accounts didn't got hacked along with his gmx address...

That's possible with the recent hack. I don't think Satoshi will be back on this board, for two reasons: 1) he owns a lot of bitcoins  2) not everyone may like the bitcoin project

Satoshi has the power of consensus. If Satoshi said "lets stay with 1MB" everyone would see it as the right thing. Same for 20MB.

[RoadStress]

Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.

Where was the consensus to lower the blocks from 32MB to 1MB?

[Lauda]

Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?

No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.
The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.

I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.

I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.