Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal?

[BIT-Sharon]

How will the limits effect on the value of per Bitcoin?

[Amph]

How will the limits effect on the value of per Bitcoin?

probably some initial dump due to fud and random mistrust, from some whale especially, but we will stabilize after that, to the current price again

one could expect a sub 200 this time, more easily than before i guess...

[EternalWingsofGod]

This may be missed by others in Bitcoin Discussion I would recommend listening the Let's Talk Bitcoin #217 Podcast it helps a lot at looking at it objectively.
It's pretty informative at explaining both sides whether it is 1MB or 20MB and provides a good understanding of the issues.
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should do about it.

During the second half of the show, Bitcoin Developer and outspoken block size increase opponent Peter Todd joins the discussion to share his perspective on the issue, the problems he sees and why taking action now actually prevents the problem from finding a market solution.

---
Let it run to the limit then if we have no choice fork but try to resolve bandwidth issues to scale up, while increasing min txt to reduce loads.

[vm_mpn]

This may be missed by others in Bitcoin Discussion I would recommend listening the Let's Talk Bitcoin #217 Podcast it helps a lot at looking at it objectively.
It's pretty informative at explaining both sides whether it is 1MB or 20MB and provides a good understanding of the issues.
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should do about it.

During the second half of the show, Bitcoin Developer and outspoken block size increase opponent Peter Todd joins the discussion to share his perspective on the issue, the problems he sees and why taking action now actually prevents the problem from finding a market solution.

---
Let it run to the limit then if we have no choice fork but try to resolve bandwidth issues to scale up, while increasing min txt to reduce loads.

Thank you for posting this E... Now both sides of the argument are more clear and make much more sense.

[kelsey]

the obvious; litecoin 

[DooMAD]

This is the situation and what we know:

This image perfectly explains the dilemma in a succinct way.  More people need to see it in the various threads where people are discussing the issues (although I'm still pretty sure most people still don't understand the implications of how the network would behave in the event of running with full blocks).  I think I'll even go back and edit some of my previous posts to include it and recommend others do the same.

[Pedja]

My proposal for Gavin:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=manly_suicide

[ragi]

Proposal 1: Show some respect to Satoshi. Make it 21MB at least.

2. Some work on faster confirmation times, or mass adopt 0/1 confirms.

[elliottflz65]

With a recent interview with Mike Hearn and Gavin Andersen they have said themselves they are not sure how close we are to hitting the limit in which they further explained as it could be years down the line or it could potentially be 1 month from now.

all those claiming to know when we are going to hit are speaking total bullshit in all honesty. anyone who is anti fork though needs to consider what other solutions there are using side chains will not be any better than the propsal gavin is offering it looks to me like the core developers and gavin and hearn are taking this too personally maybe gmaxwell more than anyone else.

although I do agree with a lot gmaxwell has said but the fact of the matter is something needs to be done and without including the proposal gmaxwell is offering and hopefully we can come up with a solution which we dont have to take gavins approach although I believe conseus will be reached if gavin does go is way

[oblivi]

How will the limits effect on the value of per Bitcoin?

probably some initial dump due to fud and random mistrust, from some whale especially, but we will stabilize after that, to the current price again

one could expect a sub 200 this time, more easily than before i guess...

But sub 200 in what coin? Because as far as I Know, we will have 2 coins now, the old coin (in the old blockchain) and the new coin, in the new blockchain, so that means 2 prices, means a new coin needs to be added on exchanges, means companies will have to choose in between one of the 2 blockchains, means a lot of things. This is a total mess.

[SebastianJu]

This is the situation and what we know:



So we are heading towards a dead end. Now, Gavin has proposed a fork of 20MB. That's a proposal. I don't know for how long would 20MB last for. Ideally, it should be able to deal with all the world's biggest electronic payment platforms transactions convined, so, can 20MB deal with a volume of for example, Western Union, Paypal, Mastercard... and so on and so on, combined? Because that is were we should aim at for the future. Bitcoin must be able to engulf all of that volume within itself to become the #1 electronic transaction method on the planet. Everything else is bullshit.
Will 20MB be enough for this or we will need ANOTHER fork in the future? If 20MB is enough, it's a reasonable proposal. Sure, forking sucks, but im not hearing any other realistic solutions. Of course, like I said before, im assuming 20MB is the definitive fork. We can't be forking every X years, that's just retarded.

What is not reasonable, is making a ton of FUD threads, saying how Gavincoin will kill BTC, while implying staying with the 1MB blocksize limit is all fine and dandy. So everytime you say Gavin's proposal is shit, explain why AND propose your own solution, otherwise you are just spreading cheap FUD.

Another question I have: What is Satoshi's view on this? im sure he expected this to happen, so I guess he had an opinion before leaving.

Wow, what a manipulating graph you posted. It lets it look like the blocks are already 95% full at the moment. And that 20MB is the last hope. I dont like such manipulations to the mind.

There is plenty of time getting to a consensus. There is no hasty decision needed. At least thats something the graph shows clearly. Especially not when the chief coder claims he will go to a company that will somewhat privatize bitcoin then. It looks more to me like Bitcoin-XT has finalized their plans and now need a great ICO, or how you could name that.

[ElectricMucus]

Take action automatically if blocks have been, on average since the last difficulty adjustment more than 62% full, for instance increase the allowed block size next difficulty adjustment. If they are less than 38% full verse via decrease it. Use the same controller software now in place for difficulty to maintain fullness of blocks ~50%.

Ok that's not strictly anti-fork, just that if there has to be a fork, make it count and figure out a smart solution.

I think it's even better to adjust the difficulty in relation to the fullness of blocks so that conformation times and supply of new coins are related to network demand, but I know that would be seen as too radical so I'm willing to settle for intelligent blocksize adjustment instead.

[galbros]

I too really like the graph, thanks for posting it.  The scale is logged so it does make it look fuller currently than it is but still the point is clearly made.

I think the only potential issue I have not seen discussed is what kind of transactions are in the blocks.  Are there still lots of dust transactions?  If so, then maybe there is a little more time as those transactions get squeezed out.  I remember there was a time when satoshidice was responsible for like 75% of all blockchain transactions.  I presume those days are long gone.

Given that the block size started out a lot bigger, moving it back to where it originally was would seem to make sense.  I just assume the downside is that the blockchain gets even bigger.

Thanks to all the posters who tried to explain what was going on, this was one of the better threads I saw on this.

[KroniK907]

Take action automatically if blocks have been, on average since the last difficulty adjustment more than 62% full, for instance increase the allowed block size next difficulty adjustment. If they are less than 38% full verse via decrease it. Use the same controller software now in place for difficulty to maintain fullness of blocks ~50%.

I would have to take much longer to ponder the consequences but I really like the Idea of maintaining the fullness of blocks at ~50%.

[ticoti]

I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary

everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything

[not altcoin hitler]

I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary

everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything

It is not necessary. Totally not. The discussion is bogus nonsense and wears everyone out. Tired of it. There are enough ways to pump up max txs without forking and risking to ruin it.
Gavin is just a crybaby with a pitchfork-reddit-mob.

Shut it already. Bitcoin is fine the way it is. Gavin is corrupt and possibly a CIA mole. The fork is an attack on Bitcoin nothing more and nothing less.

[humanitee]

There is literally no reason to be against SOME sort of increase. Even the lightning guys said they would need bigger blocks to support a robust lightning network.

Maybe 20 MB is too much all at once, but to say we don't need to fork to at least 4 MB is beyond ludicrous. That would give developers time to fully develop and test solutions to scaling. I realize mining pools are worried about relay times but 1 MB is not feasible for much longer.

Not forking will make me want to sell my coin more than the risk of forking. It is one of the few issues that would cause me to lose faith in the project. Bitcoin goes nowhere without a higher block size, period.

If we continuously delay and pretend like we have other solutions, forking and reaching consensus will become even harder as the network becomes ever larger. This really should have been taken care of sooner.

We will start pricing out micropayments if we wait much longer.

[MicroGuy]

Satoshi was not dumb, he picked Gavin for a reason. Going with Gavin on this, is honoring Satoshi's wishes. Going with the dissenting core devs is mutiny.

[jubalix]

I don't see much issue here

Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball.

HD space is still going down in cost.

[Amph]

I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary

everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything

It is not necessary. Totally not. The discussion is bogus nonsense and wears everyone out. Tired of it. There are enough ways to pump up max txs without forking and risking to ruin it.
Gavin is just a crybaby with a pitchfork-reddit-mob.

Shut it already. Bitcoin is fine the way it is. Gavin is corrupt and possibly a CIA mole. The fork is an attack on Bitcoin nothing more and nothing less.

what are all those ways you are talking about? this upgrade is not necessary right, is mandatory, we are already near the limit, there is a chart posted by someone, check it before posting other crap

bitcoin is not fine at all, big companies will never join the network with such a tiny TX limit per second, they simply cannot, they have huge movements of tx per seconds, with their business